Arizona Child Care Standards Review Committee recommendations for staff-to-children ratio and square footage requirements for public and private child care centers

              A REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR
AND THE
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE
ARIZONA CHILD CARE STANDARDS
REVIEW COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
STAFF-TO-CHILDREN RATIO AND
SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CHILD CARE CENTERS
DECEMBER, 1994
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
OFFICE OF CHILD CARE LICENSURE
1647 EAST MORTEN AVENUE, SUITE 230
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85020
(602) 255-1 272
Health and Child Care Review Services
OfJice of Child Care Licensure
1647 East Morten Avenue, Suite 230
Phoenix, Arizona 85020
(602) 255-1272 FIFE ~ ~ G T OGNO, ~ O _R
(602) 255-1126 FAX JACK DILLENBERG, D.D.s.. ~ P . H .D, I RECTOR
December 16, 1994
The Honorable Governor J. Fife Symington, 111
State Capitol, West Wing, 9th Floor
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2848
Dear Governor Symington:
The Arizona Child Care Standards Review Committee is pleased to submit the proposed
Recommendations regarding staff-to-children and square-footage requirements for public and
private day care providers. This report is in compliance with the Laws 1994, Chapter 5, Section
4, which was enacted during the Ninth Special Session of the 41st Legislature.
The report contains information regarding the decision-making process, findings, copies of the
minutes, handouts provided, summaries of the public hearings and other pertinent
documentation. The Office of Child Care Licensure within the Department of Health Servkes
has copies of other related materials that were compiled for the Committee.
The recommendations proposed in the report zonstitute a comprehensive effort to develop
standards that can be implemented by a wide range of child care providers. Moreover, the
report signifies the cooperation of a diverse group of individuals who came together for a
common purpose - to ensure the health, safety and well-being of children in day care facilities
throughout Arizona.
It is our sincere hope that the legislature will consider the Child Care Standards Review
Committee's recommendations and commit to improving the quality of child care.
Sincerely ,
d4 Y9LZ4&d
Sue Braga, Co-Ch erson bSteve r'oe, Co-Chairperson Attachments
- Leadership for a Healthy Arizona -
Health and Child Care Review Services
0 fJce of Child Care Licensure
1647 East Morten Avenue, Suite 230
Phoenix, Arizona 85020
(602) 255-1272
(602) 255-1126 FAX
FIFE SYMINGTON, GOVEILYOR
JACK DILLEMBERG, D.D.S., M.P.H., DIRECTOR
December 16, 1994
The Honorable John Greene
President of the Senate
1700 West Washington-Senate Wing
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear President Greene:
The Arizona Child Care Standards Review Committee is pleased to submit the proposed
Recommendations regarding staff-to-children and square-footage requirements for public and
private day care providers. This report is in compliance with the Laws 1994, Chapter 5, Section
4, which was enacted during the Ninth Special Session of the 41st Legislature.
The report contains information regarding the decision-making process, findings, copies of the
minutes, handouts provided, summaries of the public hearings and other pertinent
documentation. The Office of Child Care Licensure within the Department of Health Services
has copies of other related materials that were compiled for the Committee.
The recommendations proposed in the report constitute a comprehensive effort to develop
standards that can be implemented by a wide range of child care providers. Moreover, the
report signifies the cooperation of a diverse group of individuals who came together for a
common purpose - to ensure the health, safety and well-being of children in day care facilities
throughout Arizona.
It is our sincere hope that the legislature will consider the Child Care Standards Review
Committee's recommendations and commit to improving the quality of child care.
Sincerely,
Sue Braga, Co-ChB r person /' ~ t e v ~ b r oCeo,- Chairperson
Attachments
- Leadership for a Healthy Arizona -
He& and Child Care Review Services
OfJee of Child Care Lieensure
1647 East Morten Avenue, Suite 230
Phoenix, Arizona 85020
(602) 255-1272
(602) 255-1126 FAX
FIFE SYAfIXGTON. GOWOR
JACK D-ERG. D.D.S., hlP.H., DIRJXTOR
December 16, 1994
The Honorable Mark Killian
Speaker-Arizona House of Representatives
1700 West Washington-House Wing
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Speaker Killian:
The Arizona Child Care Standards Review Committee is pleased to submit the proposed
Recommendations regarding staff-to-children and square-footage requirements for public and
private day care providers. This report is in compliance with the Laws 1994, Chapter 5, Section
4, which was enacted during the Ninth Special Session of the 41st Legislature.
-The report contains information regarding the decision-making process, findings, copies of the
minutes, handouts provided, summaries of the public hearings and other pertinent
documentation. The Office of Child Care Licensure within the Department of Health Services
has copies of other related materials that were compiled for the Committee.
The recommendations proposed in the report constitute a comprehensive effort to develop
standards that can be implemented by a wide range of child care providers. Moreover, the
report signifies the cooperation of a diverse group of individuals who came together for a
common purpose - to ensure the health, safety and well-being of children in day care facilities
throughout Arizona.
It is our sincere hope that the legislature will consider the Child Care Standards Review
Committee's recommendations and commit to improving the quality of child care.
Sincerely,
Sue Braga, ofh hair person
Attachments
- Leadership for a Healthy Arizona -
ARIZONA CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal
1. Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Committee Recommendation for Public and
Private Day Care Centers:
Staff-to-Children Ratio and Square Footage Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ill. Summary of Public Participation and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
0 Summary of Oral Comments
0 Summary of Written Comments
IV. Summary of Anticipated Impact on Public and Private Day Care Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1
Appendices:
A. Senate Bill 1005 (Laws 1994, Chapter 5)
B. Child Care Standards Review Committee (CCSRC)
0 Committee Members
0 Subcommittee Members
C. ADHS Implementation Team Members
D. Other Agency Representatives
E. CCSRC Committee Meetings
0 October 5, 1994
0 October 19, 1994
0 October 24, 1994 (Subcommittee)
0 November 2, 1994
0 December 7, 1994
0 December 16, 1994
F. CCSRC Public Meetings Documentation
0 Notice of Meetings (Open Meeting Law)
0 Press Notices
Page i Arizona Child Care Standards
Review Committee
ARIZONA CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
F. CCSRC Public Meetings Documentation (continued)
0 Notice to Interested Parties (Mailing)
0 Public Meetings Agenda
0 Public Meeting Opening Remarks (Script)
0 Public Hearing Speaker Slip
0 MinutesIAttendees
G. A.R.S. § 36-881 et seq: Current
Statute: Child Day Care Programs
H. A.A.C., Title 9, Chapter 5:
Current Rules: Child Day Care Centers
1. ADHS Supporting Data and Documentation Concerning All States
0 Comparison of Square Footage Requirements
0 Comparison of Ratio Requirements
0 Infant & Toddler Programs
0 Preschool-Age Programs in Public Schools -
Indoor Space Requirements, Comments, and Ratios
0 Preschool Programs Housed in Public Schools
0 School-Age Programs Not Operated by a School District
0 School-Age Programs in Public Schools and
the Agencies That Regulate Them
0 School-Age Programs in Public Schools -
Indoor Space Requirements and Exclusions
0 Clarification of Definitions
J. Reference Supporting Teenage Parent Status under
the Recommended Staff-to-Children Ratio
(A.A.C. Title 9, Chapter 5, Articles 4 and 6)
K. Arizona Department of Education Survey of
School-Operated Child Care Guidelines (1 994)
Page ii Arizona Child Care Standards
Review Committee
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Purpose
The Arizona Child Care Standards Review Committee (ACCSRC) was established
following the passage of Chapter 5, Senate Bill 1005 during the Ninth Special Session
of the Arizona Legislature, June, 1994. The Committee is charged with improving
child care in the state. Specifically, the purpose of the Committee is to:
+ Conduct an evaluation of laws that govern child day care
programs to determine ways to lessen the regulatory burden on
providers .while protecting the health, safety and well-being of
children in all day care settings.
+ To create a comparable regulatory system that applies to public
and private child day care programs.
+ To study how to apply comparable day care center square footage
and staff-to-children requirements.
+ To recommend the agency to be responsible for the
administration and enforcement of the standards.
+ To conduct public hearings in different locations.
+ To submit several reports.
Refer to Appendix A, Senate Bill 1005.
Under the law, the first phase of the Committee's task is to recommend staff-to-children
ratios and square footage requirements by December 31, 1994. This report
includes the ACCSRC Committee's Recommendation and supporting documentation.
Committee Membership
Under the law, the ACCSRC Committee was established consisting of the following
members:
1. The Superintendent of Public Instruction or the Superintendent's
designee.
2. Five members appointed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Page 1 Arizona Child Care Standards
Review Committee
3. Two members appointed by the Governor.
4. Two members appointed by the President of the'senate.
5. Two members appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
- .
Refer to Appendix B, Committee Members.
Committee Support
The Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS), Office of Child Care Licensure
was identified as the Agency charged with the responsibility to support the ACCSRC
Committee. The ADHS Implementation Team members are listed in Appendix C.
In addition to ADHS'staff, representatives from Arizona Department of Economic
Security and Arizona Department of Education also provided support to the
Committee. Other agency representatives are listed in Appendix D.
Facilitation and administrative support is provided to the Committee by the private
consulting firm, PRISM, Inc.
Committee Meetings
In August and September, 1994, Committee members were selected. Also during this
time period ADHS staff finalized the planning and preparation for the Committee's
activity. The first Committee meeting was held on October 5, 1994. During the first
phase of their task, the full Committee met five times. In addition, a sub-committee
met once to draft proposed staff-to-children and square footage requirements. A
schedule of meetings is included in Appendix E. Sub-committee members are listed
in Appendix B.
As specified in the law, public meetings were conducted in various locations
throughout the state. Representatives from the ACCSRC Committee conducted the
four meetings with support from the ADHS Implementation Team. Refer to Section
Ill and Appendix F for additional information about the public meetings.
Committee Process
The Committee selected two Co-Chairpersons to provide formal leadership of
meetings. Leadership of meetings rotated between the co-chairpersons. In addition,
they developed meeting agendas with the assistance of the Facilitator and ADHS
staff.
Page 2 Arizona Child Care Standards
Review Committee
Committee meetings followed the open meeting law requirements and formal rules of
order. Committee discussion focused on reaching consensus on issues when
possible. The approach used by the Committee to accomplish its first task was to:
+ Clarify the task and exemptions
+ Identify areas of agreement
+ Use of sub-committee to draft proposed standards
+ Committee approval of proposed standards
+ Obtain public comment
+ Finalize recommendations and report
Each meeting was attended by interested members of the public. Members of the
public in attendance commented at most meetings. Meeting agendas, minutes and
lists of attendees are included in Appendix E.
Page 3 Arizona Child Care Standards
Review Committee
II. ARIZONA CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
PROPOSED STAFF-TO-CHILDREN RATIO AND
SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS
The Child Care Standards Review Committee recommends that the existing day care
center requirements for staff-to-children ratio and square footage apply to both public
and private day care providers. (Pursuant to Laws 1994, Chapter 5, Section 4,
Subsections B.2 and B.6):
A) Children shall be grouped for supervision according to age and maturity and
center personnel shall supervise all children at all times. There shall be at least
the following ratios of personnel directly engaged in the care and supervision
of children in the center's care:
B) At least 25 square feet of interior activity space shall be available for each child
included in the center's capacity, except that at least 35 square feet shall be
available for each infant and one-year-old child up to the second birthday.
When one-year-old children are mixed with older children in the same activity
area, the requirement of at least 35 square feet of indoor activity space per
child shall govern.
1. Infants
2. One-year-old children
3. Two-year-old children
4. Three-year-old children .
5. Four-year-old children
6. Five-year-old children who are not yet school age
7. School-age children
C) At !east 75 square feet shall be available for each child occupying the outside
play area at any time. To allow all children scheduled access, the outside play
area shall contain the minimum of 75 square feet per child for at least 50
percent of the center's capacity.
1:5 or 2:11
1:6 or 2:13
1:8
1:13
1:15
1 :20
1 :20
D) An outside play area shall not be required if no child attends the center more
than four hours per day and at least 50 square feet of indoor activity space is
available for each child.
Page 4 Arizona Child Care Standards
Review Committee
Report on
Staff-to-Children Ratio and
Square Footage Requirements
E) The following are exceptions to A - D:
, 1. Teenagers present in the center for academic purposes and under adult
supervision who are 14 and 15 years of age shall not be counted in the
center's staffing ratios as either children or adults if they are enrolled in
a curriculum-based child care occupation or child development program1
for academic credit.
2. Teenage parents under 16 years of age who are present. in the center
shall not be counted in the staff-to-children ratio requirements as either
children or adult^.^
3. Federally mandated programs that operate under federal regulations that
meet or exceed state square footage requirements and staff-to-children
ratio requirement^.^
This recommendation does not determine the agency responsible for enforcing and
administering square footage requirements or staff-to-children ratio requirements for
child care provided by public schools.
' ltem 1 refers to HEROISTRIVE or comparable programs.
* Reference Appendix J, Reference Supporting Teenage Parent Status under the
Recommended Staff-to-Children Ratio.
ltem 3 exemption refers to Migrant Programs, American Indian Education Program,
Bilingual Programs, Special Education, Even Start, Head Start, and Title One Programs.
Page 5 Arizona Child Care Standards
Review Committee
Ill. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ISSUES
The Arizona Child Care Standards Review Committee (ACCSRC) with the support of
the Implementation Team from ADHS conducted public meetings for the purpose of
obtaining public comment, input and testimony on the Committee's proposed staff-to-children
ratios and square footage requirements for public and private child day care
programs.
Four meetings were conducted between November 14 - 22, 1994 in Yuma, Flagstaff,
Tucson and Phoenix. All public meeting documentation, schedule, notices, press
notices, mailing, opening remarks, agendas, minutes and attendees are attached as
Appendix F.
The Committee also invited the public to submit written comments on the proposed
requirements directly to ADHS office by November 25, 1994.
A summary of both oral and written public comments was prepared by the
Committee's Facilitator and presented at the meeting of December 7. The summaries
are included in this section. Complete transcripts of public comments and sample
letters are included in Appendix F.
Page 6 Arizona Child Care Standards
Review Committee
November 30, 1994
(Revised 1 2/8/94)
ARIZONA CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
SUMMARY OF ORAL COMMENTS FROM
PUBLIC MEETINGS ON PROPOSED
STAFF-TO-CHILDREN RATIO AND SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CHILD CARE PROGRAMS
(November 14 - 22, 1994)
Following is a summary of the public comments regarding Child care Standards
Review Committee's proposed recommendation for Staff-to-Children Ratio and Square
Footage Requirements for Public and Private Day Care Programs. Each of the public
meetings was taped and the detailed transcriptions are enclosed with this summary.
A total of 31 members of the public made comments at the four meetings. Following
are subtotals by location:
Major Themes from Public Comments:
1. 15 of 31 speakers supported the proposed Staff-to-Children Ratios and Square
Footage Requirements.
2. 9 of 31 speakers expressed the opinion that the proposed standards are too
liberal to be in the best interest of the children. Many of these speakers
referred to the standards recommended by the National Association for
Education of Young Children, American Academy of Pediatrics/American Public
Health Association, and The National Center for Clinical Infant Programs, as
better guidelines for staffing ratios.
Page 7 Arizona Child Care Standards
Review Committee
3. 6 of 31 speakers voiced concern and confusion regarding how teenagers and
teen parents are addressed in the staffing ratios. This issue may need further
clarification.
4. One individual raised the issue of more timely notification of public hearings and
the dissemination of information to all concerned parties. This concern referred
primarily to the Life Manaqement Educators in the public school system
throughout the state. These individuals did not receive information until after
the first public meeting was held.
Not Clear How
Teens Counted
19%
Proposed Stds.
Not Strong
Enough 29%
5. Additional Items for Clarification:
a. Inside Square Footage Requirement - Exactly what does the 35 square
foot activity space for infants include? (Refer to State Statute,
Article 6, Section 603)
b. How do proposed standards a ~ p l vto : Year-round school, enrichment
programs and family education programs?
Submitted by:
Margaret O'Donnell
PRISM, Inc.
Page 8 Arizona Child Care Standards
Review Committee
November 30, 1994
(Revised 12/8/94)
ARIZONA CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM
PUBLIC MEETINGS ON PROPOSED
STAFF-TO-CHILDREN RATIO AND SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CHILD CARE PROGRAMS
(November 14 - 22, 1994)
A total of 150 written comments were submitted by the public. Ninety-one were
mailed to ADHS and fifty-nine were hand delivered at the four public meetings.
Following is a summary of major themes from written comments. Actual written
comments are filed at the Office of Child Care Licensure and are available for review
upon request. Sam~leso f form letters are submitted for your information.
Major Themes from Written Comments
1. Ninety-eight of the public submitting comments support the proposed
standards (91 of the letters were from various private child care providers in
Tucson - see sample letter # I attached).
2. Twenty-one of the public submitting comments felt that the proposed square
footage and ratio requirements are acceptable, however, want to extend
exemptions to community education enrichment programs (see sample letter
#2 attached).
3. Sixteen of the public submitting comments felt that further regulation of public
school daycare was not necessary and will not contribute to higher quality
child care (see sample letter #3 attached).
4. Four of the public submitting written comments expressed the opinion that the
proposed standards are not strong enough to be in the best interest of children.
5. Six of the public submitting written comments do not support the proposed
regulation of public school child care.
6. Five additional letters related to timely notification or general comments
unrelated to proposed standards were received.
(See chart on next page)
Page 9 Arizona Child Care Standards
Review Committee
No Further Reg.
of Public School
Necess. 11%
Acceptable but
Extend
Exemptions 14%
Proposed Regs.
for Public
Other 3%
. .
Proposed
Standards 65%
Submitted by:
Margaret O'Donnell
Prism, Inc.
Page 10 Arizona Child Care Standards
Review Committee
SAMPLE
LETTER # 1
I am writing in support of ~*?gulatio;ls :hat follo..s- the child. It
'also seems only approprinte for ojlca agency to oversee these
regulatior~s. All progra11l.G x hethc-s public or' private sho!lld 1 t i - l ~ ~
to abide br the same hcrc!t:r aisd =kfr-:i,t ~.ep:rlati.irls. this sei'llt~
0111,v fair.
Please take our children's baslc i into considel.a:ioii.
Thank you in advance for seriog<!,\- co:isi:lerinz this i s s ~ ea nd oar
children's best interests .
Thank You,
SAIMPLE
LETTER #2
November 15, 1994
Members of the Child Care Standards Review Committee
% Ms. Marlene Morgan, Program Manager
ADHS Office of Child Care Licensure
1647 East Morten Ave., Suite # 230
Phoenix, AZ 85020
RE: Senate Bill 1005
Dear Committee Members:
I recently received a notice about a public meeting to be held to
review your Committee's recommendation for staffing ratios and
square footage standards for both public and private day care
centers- I have no quarrel with these ratios and standards since
the public school child care programs have usually surpassed them
anyway. But I understand that there are members of the committee
who want to extend any rules and regulations beyond the realm of
the traditional "child care" setting to that of the educational
and recreational programs that the public schools offer-.outside
of school hours, including summer school and other enrichment
programs.
I fear that if such rules and regulations are written with only
child care in mind and then applied to educational settings that
the enrichment programs offered by the schools and other agencies
such as the YWCA/YMCA's would be in jeopardy, I believe that the
following facilities should be exempt from any rules and
regulations that your committee sets: the homes of parents or
blood relatives; a religious institution conducting a nursery in
conjunction with its religious services; an educational
institution conducting a nursery in conjunction with adult
classes or meetings; regularly organized private or public
schools engaged in an educational program before, during and
after school hours, including community education enrichment
programs (if such schools provide "day care only" programs before
or after school, that portion of the school providing such care
shall be considered a day care center and subject to
regulations); any facility that provides educational or training
in specific subjects such as dance, drama, music, self-defense,
religion, art, academics, and specific sports; and any facility
that provides only recreational or instructional activities to
school age children who may come and go from the center at their
own volition,
The children in my district have used community education classes
and programs to enrich their lives for many ears.' There have
been no other services available in the area. We do not wish
these programs to end because some special interest group wishes
to create yet another agency to oversee programs we feel already
have adequate supervision.
SAMPLE
LETTER #3
November 15. 1994
Members of the Child Care Standards Review Committee
% Ms. Marlene Morgan, Program Manager
ADHS Office of Child Cme Licensure
1647 East Morten Ave., Suite # 230
Phoenix, AZ 85020
RE: Senate B i l l 1005
Dear Committee Members:
I t recently came to my attention that your Committee has been
given the charge of extending licensing rules and remilations to
child care programs t h a t e x i s t under the auspices of the public
school system. I understand that t h e r e > i da~ group of private
child care providers that made allegations that the child care
programs in the public schools were inferior because they were
not required to be licensed. I also understand t h a t t h i s same
moup appears to feel that the rules and regulations should also
be extended to govern educational and recreational programs that
the public schools offer outside of school hours, including
swnmer school and other enrichment programs,
I cannot believe that in a time during which many are calling for
a reduction in taxes and a reduction in government regulation
that a group vith a narrow agenda of its own has asked the state
to create another agency or expand the scope of an existing
agency to enforce rules and regulations over programs that
currently answer to the f i r e marshall, OSHA, ADA, DES, the
principal of school in which the program is housed, the
Superintendent of the District, the Governing Board of the
District, and Parents. Having yet another agency oversee these
programs would cost the taxpayers more with l i t t l e to show in the
way of better quality programs-
The public school programs are adequately governed on a local
level, and I f e e l t h a t i f something is not right I have a forum
in which to bring my grievances. We do not need yet another
layer of bureaucracy to oversee programs that have not exhibited
inadequacies.
Sincerely,
IV. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACT ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DAY
CARE CENTERS
The ACCSRC Committee's Recommendation will apply to staff-to-children and square
footage ratios at public and private child day care centers in the state.
The total number of licensed private child day care centers affected is 1,329 as of
December 1, 1994.
The total number of public school-based child day care centers affected by these
requirements has not been determined at this time. However, the potential number
of schools in the state which may have one or more child care programs is between
1 and 1,108 public schools, as of September 1, 1994. These include elementary and
middle schools, junior high schools, and high schools.
Exemptions are noted in Section II, Committee's Recommendation.
Page 11 Arizona Child Care Standards
Review Committee
State of Arizona
Senate
Forty-first Legislature
Ninth Special Session
1994
. .
. .
CHAPTER 5
SENATE BILL 1005
AN ACT
AMENDING TITLE 36, CHAPTER 7.1, ARTICLE 1, ARIZONA REYISED STATUTES, BY
ADDING SECTION 36-883.04; AHENDING SECTION 36-883.04, ARIZONA REYISED
STATUTES, AS ADDED BY THIS ACT; MENDING SECTION 36-884, ARIZONA REYISED
STATUTES; HAKING AN APPROPRIATION; RELATING TO CHILD DAY CARE.
Be it enacted byothe Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 36, chapter 7.1, article 1, Arizona Revised
Statutes, is amended by adding section 36-883.04, to read:
36-883.04. Standards of care: rules: enforcement:
deadline
A. NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 36-884, THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH SERVICES, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOHIC SECURITY, SHALL PRESCRIBE REASONABLE RULES AND
STANDARDS REGARDING:
1. THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN CARED FOR IN ANY
PUBLIC SCHOOL DAY CARE PROGRAM. THESE RULES SHALL BE COMPARABLE TO THE
RULES AND STANDARDS PRESCRIBED PURSUANT TO SECTION 36-883.
2. THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STANDARDS OF CARE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
THIS SUBSECTION INCLUDING PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THESE
STANDARDS. THESE ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTY PROVISIONS SHALL BE COMPARABLE
TO THOSE EXISTING FOR PRIVATE DAY CARE PROCRAHS.
B. THE RULES REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE
ADOPTED AND FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 41-1024
OR 41-1026 NO LATER THAN MARCH 31, 1996.
C. RULES PRESCRIBED PURSUAKT TO SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION SHALL
PROVIDE THAT THE RULES DO NOT BECOME EFFECTIYE BEFORE JULY 1, 1996.
S.B.
Sec. 2. Section 36-883.04, '~ritona Revised Statutes, as added by
section 1 of this act, is amended to read:
36-883.04. Standards of care: rules; enforcement
A. ::AThe director ef til-shall
prescribe reasonable rules and
standards regarding?
the health, safety and well-being of children cared for in any
public school day care program. These rules shall be comparable to the
rules and standards prescribed pursuant to section 36-883.
THE DIRECTOR SHALL ALSO PRESCRIBE RULES REGARDING the
enforcement of the standards of care t c th-including
penalties for noncompliance wtth these standards. These
enforcement 'and penalty provisions shall be comparable to those existing
for private day care programs.
read:
36-884. Exempt ions
The provisions of this article shall not apply to the care given- to
children by or in:
1. The homes of parents or blood relatives.
2. A religious institution conducting a nursery in conjunction with
its religious services or conducting parent-supervised occasional drop-in
care.
3. 'A unit of. the public school system. IF A PUBLIC SCHOOL PROVIDES
DAY CARE OTHER THAN DURING REGULAR SCHOOL HOURS OR FOR CHILDREN WHO ARE
NOT REGULARLY ENROLLED IN KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS OR GRADES ONE THROUGH
TWELVE, THAT PORTION OF THE SCHOOL THAT PROYIDES DAY CARE IS SUBJECT TO
STANDARDS OF CARE PRESCRIBED PURSUANT TO SECTION 36-883.04.
4. A regularly organized private school engaged in an educational
program which may be attended in substitution for public school pursuant
to section 15-802. If such school provides day care beyond regular public
school hours or for children who are not regularly enrolled in
kindergarten programs or grades one through twelve, that port ion of the
school providing such care shall be considered a day care center and
subject to the provisions of this article.
5. Any facility that provides training only in specific subjects,
including dancing, drama, music, self-defense or religion.
6. Any facility that provides only recreational or instructional
activities to school age children who may come to and go from the center
at their own volition.
7.. Any of the Arizona state schools for the deaf and the blind.
S.B. 1005
Sec. 4. Child care standards review committee:
membership: duties
A. The child care standards review' committee is established
consisting of the fo1 lowing members:
1. The superintendent of public instruction or the superintendent's
designee.
2. Five members appointed by the superintendent of public
instruction.
3. Two members appointed by the governor.
4. Two members appointed by the president of the senate.
5. Two members appointed by the speaker of the house of
representatives.
B. The committee shall:
1. Conduct an evaluation of laws that govern this state's child day
care programs in order to determine ways to lessen theyregulatory burden
on providers and to protect the health, safety and well-being of the
children in all day care settings and to create a comparable regulatory
system that applies to public and private child day care programs.
2. Study how to apply comparable day care center square footage
requirements and staff to children ratio requirements to public and
private day care providers.
' 3. Recommend the agency to be responsible for the administration
and enforcement of the comparable regulatory standards applicable to
public and private day care programs.
4. Conduct public hearings in different locations throughout this
state in order to gather information and take public testimony.
5. Submit a written report of its findings and recommendations
regarding paragraphs 1 and 3 of this, subsection to the governor, the
president of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives and
the director of the legislative council on or before June 30, 1995.
6. Submit a written report of its findings and recommendations
regarding paragraph 2 of this subsection to the governor, the president of
the senate and the speaker of the house of repr.esentatives on or before
December 31, 1994.
C. Committee members are not eligible for compensation, but public
members are eligible for reimbursement of expenses under title 38, chapter
4, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes.
D. The department of health services, in coordination with the
department of economic security and the department of education, shall
staff the committee and provide it with necessary administrative services .
Sec. 5. ~eqislztive intent
This state has a res~on~ibilitto~ p arents and their children to
ensure that all day care centeis maintain high standards that protect the
health, safety and well-being of children in day care facilities. It is
the intent of the legislature that this act serve to initiate the
development of a single regulatory system for public and private day care
programs that is administered by a single agency and that provides
S.B. 1005
1 standards of care, including provisions for the enforcement of these
2 . standards and penalties for noncompliance.
Sec. 6. Appropriation
The sum of $39,400 is appropriated from the state general fund in
5 fiscal year 1994-1995 to the'dephrtment of health services to conduct the
6 evaluation of child care rules prescribed by section 4 of this act.
Sec. 7. Delayed repeal
Section 4 of this act is repealed from and after ~ecember 31, 1995.
9 Sec. 8. Delayed effective date
10 . A. Section 36-883.04, Arizona Revised Statutes, as added by section
11 1 of this act, is effective from and after June 30, 1995 or on the receipt
12 of the report required pursuant to section 4, subsection By paragraph 5 of
13 this act by the director of the legislative council, whichever is sooner.
14 B. Section 36-883.04, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by
15 - section 2 of this act, and section 36-884, Arizona Revised Statutes, as
16 amended by this act, are effective from and after June 30, 1996.
Z .
A\P. O VED BY THE GOVERNOR JUNE 17, I994
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
PURPOSE: To conduct an evaluation of laws that govern child day care
programs to determine ways to lessen the regulatory
burden on providers while protecting the health, safety and
well-being of children in all day care settings; to create a
comparable regulatory system that applies to public and
private child day care programs; to study how to apply
comparable day care center square-footage requirements
and staff-to-children ratio requirements; to recommend the
agency to be responsible for the administration and
enforcement of the standards; to conduct public hearings
in different locations; to submit several reports.
MEMBERS: APPOINTED BY:
1. Steve Broe, Vice President Speaker of the House of Representatives
American Child Care Centers #55
10640 N. 32nd Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85028
Telephone: (602) 788-21 85
Fax: (602) 788-8972
2. Barbara Nelson, Director
4945 Via Entrada
Tucson, Arizona 8571 8
Telephone: (602) 327-0844
Fax: (602) 299-431 2
3. Craig Barton, Director
Camelback Desert Schools
9606 E. Kalil Drive
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
Telephone: (602) 45 1 -3 1 30
Fax: (602) 45 1 -8 1 97
Speaker of the House of Representatives
President of the Senate
4. Kevin DeMenna, Partner President of the Senate
Nelson, Robb, DuVal & DeMenna
3550 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 1 200
Phoenix, Arizona 8501 2-21 00
Telephone: (602) 264-43 1 3
Fax: (602) 264-6579
5. Carol Kamin, Executive Director Superintendent of Public Instruction
Children's Action Alliance
4001 N. 3rd Street, Ste. 1 60
Phoenix, Arizona 8501 2
Telephone: (602) 266-0707
Fax: (602) 263-8792
6. Judy Walruff, ACSW, ClSW Superintendent of Public Instruction
Program Officer
Flinn Foundation
3300 N. Central Avenue Ste. 2300
Phoenix, Arizona 8501 2
Telephone: (602) 274-9000
Fax: (602) 274-3 1 94
7. Brenda Even Superintendent of Public Instruction
School Board Member
Tucson Unified School District
1010 E. 10th Street
Tucson, Arizona 8571 9
Telephone: (602) 882-2400
Fax: (602) 798-8767
8. Sue Braga, State Commissioner Superintendent of Public Instruction
of Education
Arizona Congress Parent and
Teacher Association (PTA)
8107 Del Cadena
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Telephone: (602) 998-4700
Fax: (602) 991-51 18
9. Michael Bell, Ph.D. Superintendent of Public Instruction
Early Childhood Education Specialist
Arizona Department of Education
1535 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Telephone: (602) 542-7842
Fax: (602) 542-2990
10. Nedda Shafir Superintendent of Public Instruction
Early Childhood Coordinator
Washington Elementary School District
861 0 N. 19th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85021
Telephone: (602) 864-2600
Fax: (602) 864-091 6
1 1. Chuck Shipley Office of The Governor
Vice President of Public Affairs
Arizona Chamber of Commerce
1221 E. Osborn, Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona 8501 5
Telephone: (602) 248-91 72
Fax: (602) 265-1 262
12. Barry M. Aarons Office of The Governor
Director of Government Relations
U.S. West
3033 N. 3rd Street, Room 1007
Phoenix, Arizona 8501 2
Telephone: (602) 235-3588
Fax: (602) 235-4890
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS
To Draft Proposed
Staff-to-Children and Square Footage Requirements
Michael Bell, Ph.D.
Early Childhood Education Specialist
Arizona Department of Education
Steve Broe, Vice President
American Child Care Centers
Kevin DeMenna, Partner
Nelson, Robb, DuVal & DeMenna
Carol Kamin, Executive Director
Children's Action Alliance
Judy Walruff, CCSRC member, also attended this meeting.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
OFFICE OF CHILD CARE LICENSURE
IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
PROGRAM MANAGER: MARLENE MORGAN
TEAM LEADER: PAT RIPLEY
DATA ADMINISTRATION UNIT: LESLEY SCHIRALDI
LICENSING SPECIALISTS: SUSAN BENSON, CATHERINE MULLIGAN
RULESIPOLICY: MARY HOWARD
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY: CAMILLE FERRARI
SB 1005
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
OTHER STATE AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
DES CHILD CARE ADMINISTRATION
FEDERAL PLAN COORDINATOR:
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
EDUCATION PROGRAM SPECIALIST:
TONY ZABlCKl
GARY FORTNEY
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
DATE TIME 1 LOCATION
10/05/94
10/1 9/94
1 :30 p.m. -
4:00 pim.
10/24/94
DHS Office
1740 W. Adams
Phoenix, AZ
2:00 p.m. -
5:00 p.m.
11/2/94
Capitol Building, 8th Floor Conference Room
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ
2:00 p.m. -
4:00 p.m.
- - - -
12/7/94
Capitol Building, 8th Floor Conference Room
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ
2:00 p.m. -
5:00 p.m.
1211 6/94
Capitol Building, 8th Floor Conference Room
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ
2:00 p.m. -
5:00 p.m.
Capitol Building, 8th Floor Conference Room
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ
1 1 :30 a.m. -
3:00 p.m.
Children's Action Alliance
4001 N. Third Street
Phoenix, AZ
AGENDA
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1994
CONFERENCE ROOM 309
1740 W. ADAMS
Phoenix, Arizona
1 :30 - 4:00 p.m.
PHONE: 255-1 272
1 :30 p.m. 1. Welcome and Introductions
1 :45 p.m. I I. Committee Structure and
Appointment of ChairsJCo-Chairs
2:45 p.m. 111. Overview of Sendate Bill 1005
3: 1 5 p.m. IV. Planning Process and Timeframes
4:00 p.m. V. Adjournment
REVISED
MEETING MINUTES
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1994
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Broe, Barbara Nelson, Craig Barton, Kevin DeMenna,
Carol Kamin, Brenda Even, Sue Braga, Michael Bell, Nedda
Shafir, Chuck Shipley, Barry M. Aarons .
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Judy Walruff
STAFF PRESENT: Implementation Team for SB 1005: Marlene Morgan, Pat
Ripley, Susan Benson, Catherine Mulligan, Lesley Schiraldi,
Mary Howard, Camille Ferrari, Tony Zabicki, Gary Fortney
FACILITATOR: Margaret O1Donnell, PRISM, Inc.
Lynda Rahi, Associate Director for the Department of Health Services, opened the
meeting.
1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
rds. Rahi introduced herself and welcomed Committee members, staff and public
attendees. Ms. Rahi emphasized the Committee's role, explained staff's role and
noted specific time schedules. She then introduced Virginia Blair, Acting Assistant
Director, Office of Health and Child Care Licensure. Ms. Blair explained the mission
of the office and stated that the Office of Health and Child Care Licensure would be
available to assist the Committee with any needs they may have. Marlene Morgan,
Program Manager for the Office of Child Care Licensure, was introduced. Ms. Morgan
commented on the importance of public comments, explained that the Committee will
operate under the guidelines of the Open Meeting Law and public hearing
requirements. Ms. Morgan introduced Margaret O'Donnell and the implementation
team from the Office of Child Care Licensure. Following Committee self-introductions,
Ms. O'Donnell presented overheads explaining the primary purpose of the Committee
and Senate Bill 1005. The Committee requested that individual copies of overheads
be prepared for members for future meetings.
October 5, 1994
Page 2
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
II. COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AND APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRS AND CO-CHAIRS
Ms. D'Donnell reviewed the agenda and discussed the rule of the Committee and
options for electing a Chair and Co-Chair. A handout was disseminated regarding
Conflict Management and Resolution. Discussion followed regarding this issue. Ms.
OIDonnell also stressed the importance of full participation at Committee meetings
and use of a substitute. It was determined that the law does not allow for
substitutes. All members agreed that a representative may be present, but will not
be able to participate in the voting process.
Members requested that agendas and minutes be sent out in enough time to prepare
for future meetings. Mr. Aarons requested that staff prepare a recommended agenda
to be disseminated to members before next meeting. It was also requested that
review of minutes be the first agenda item and timeframes be eliminated and
determination of future Committee meeting dates and times be put on agenda for next
meeting. Resource information is to be submitted and centralized with Marlene
Morgan. An agenda for each meeting should be prepared by co-chairs and facilitator.
All concurred that Wednesday was a good meeting day and that meetings be held in
the capitol area. Meetings will last for approximately three hours. The next meeting
will be October 19, 1994 from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Times and dates for future
meetings will be discussed at a later date depending on the availability of members'
time and schedule. Members continued to discuss meeting structure. It was decided
that all meetings will be held in compliance with the Open Meeting Law requiring a
formal process of decision-making; all legal process will follow the law and rules of
order. The Committee preferred that discussion leading toward a decision point be
more informed and that the Committee would strive for consensus on issues when
possible. All agreed that guest speakers would be permitted at meetings by invitation.
Members requested a roster of staff support including ADE and DES. Steve Broe and
Sue Braga were nominated and chosen Co-Chairs. This will be a formal agenda item
and a vote will take place at the next Committee Meeting.
Members discussed the use of subcommittees. All agreed that subcommittees shall
consist of six or fewer members. Mr. Aarons addressed the need for the
Parliamentarian to work with the subcommittees. It was agreed that a Parliamentarian
would be elected at the next meeting. Committee requested a summary of Rules of
Order be sent to Committee members with agenda.
Ill. OVERVIEW OF SENATE BILL 1005
Senate Bill 1005 was reviewed by members. There was discussion regarding the
roles and responsibilities of DHS, ADE and DES. Several possibilities for the lead
agency were discussed. It was suggested that the Committee's first focus should be
to achieve consensus on standards for square footage and staff-to-children ratios,
October 5, 1994
Page 3
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
deliverables due by December 31. Staff distributed a handout of this information
already collected. Questions from members were answered by staff regarding the
report. Ms. Nelson requested cost information. DHS will attempt to gather cost
information to be added to square footage and staff\child ratios.
The State of Arizona Child Care Study Report prepared by DES was distributed.
Members discussed the usefulness of the report. Steve Broe suggested that the
Committee look at other states, but try not to move towards national standards
because of environmental differences. Members recommended that the current rules
and regulations be reviewed to identify which are acceptable and which need to be
revised. A brief discussion ensued regarding the standards of public sector vs. private
sector. NAEYC standards were discussed. Michael Bell will provide documents from
the Department of Education regarding this issue.
IV. PLANNING PROCESS AND TIMEFRAMES
Concern was expressed regarding public input and public hearings prior to the
December 31 deadline. It was suggested that the committee focus on the larger issue
facing the Committee for the deadline. Public hearing schedules must comply with
required public notice lead time. It was recommended that information be gathered
at public hearings in the state to get public testimonylinput instead of at the end of
process, work with existing standards for the first phase.
Suggested approaches:
1. Review private center rules and adapt to public school centers;
2. Start with basic questions about centers to get input using "Regulations follow
the Child" philosophy, i.e., uniform regs for all centers;
3. Other options, (part of the charge);
4. NAEYC and NECP accreditation standards;
5. Nedda Shafir expressed concern that public school rules are being viewed as
inferior to private section school rules.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments were made by the following individuals:
Healther Wilmesher, Parks and Recreation
Ms. Wilmesher expressed concern as t o how the Committee is going to affect parks
and recreation programs. She noted that they do supply after-school programs and
want to be on the front line of providing services. Ms. Wilmesher stated that the
Department of Parks and Recreation will make every effort to have a representative
present at all meetings.
October 5, 1994
Page 4
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
Renee Chambers, Madison School District
Representative After School Proqrams
Ms. Chambers expressed concern that the Committee look at the scope of public
schools. She stated the public sector is concerned for the health, safety and well
being of children and that their programs should be respected.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
MEMBERS:
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEETING
Steve Broe
Barbara Nelson
Craig Barton
Kevin DeMenna
Carol Kamin
Brenda Even
Sue Braga
Michael Bell
Nedda Shafir
Chuck Shipley
Barry M. Aarons
OCTOBER 5, 1994
ABSENT:
Judy Walruff
IMPLEMENTATION TEAM:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
OFFICE OF CHILD CARE LICENSURE
Marlene Morgan
Pat Ripley
Susan Benson
Catherine Mulligan
Lesley Schiraldi
Mary Howard
Camille Ferrari
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
DES CHILD CARE ADMINISTRATION
Tony Zabicki
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Gary Fortney
AGENDA
VI.
VII.
VIII.
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1994
CAPITAL BUILDING, 8TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
1700 WEST WASHINGTON
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
PHONE: 255-1 272
Welcome, review and approval of 10/05/94 meeting minutes
Additional Committee process issues - Clarify roles of Co-Chairs and Facilitator
- Meeting communication guidelines
- Consensus process
- Rules of Order summary and procedures
Review of Additional Data Requested From Implementation Team
- Clarify type of "cost" information needed
- Highlights of NAEYC, NECPA and other standards
- Pre-School age information
- Other data
Discussion and Clarification of Key Terminology and Issues
- "Comparable" vs. "Uniform"
- Exemptions and Inclusions
Square Footage and Staff-to-Children Ratios
- Presentation by Gary Fortney, ADE, on current private and public school
regulations
- Determine timetable for completing recommendations report by 1 2/31 194
due date
- Determine process for getting public input on this topic
Meeting Evaluation and Agenda for Next Meeting
Public Comment
Adjournment
AMENDED MEETING MINUTES
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1994
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Broe, Barbara Nelson, Craig Barton, Kevin DeMenna,
Carol Kamin, Duane Yourko (for Judy Walruff), Brenda Even, Sue Braga, Michael Bell,
Nedda Shafir, Chuck Shipley, Barry Aarons
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Judy Walruff
STAFF PRESENT: Implementation Team for SB 1005: Susan Benson, Pat Ripley,
Lesley Schiraldi, Mary Howard, Marlene Morgan, Virginia Blair, Tony Zabicki, Gary
Fortney, Catherine Mulligan
FACILITATOR: Margaret O'Donnell, PRISM, lnc.
Co-Chair Steve Broe called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. and initiated Committee,
Staff and Public Attendee introductions.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 1015194
Mr. Aarons stated that he had a problem with the minutes from the October 5
meeting. He stated the minutes'were not in the proper format and suggested tabling
approval of the October 5 minutes until the November 2 meeting, at which time they
could be submitted in public meeting format. Shirley Anderson has the appropriate
format for minutes, and can be of assistance in correcting the October 5 minutes. Mr.
Aarons suggested utilizing someone who was familiar with state type meetings to
take the minutes.
Ms. Even stated that in Item Ill, Overview of Senate Bill 1005, it was suggested that
the DHS be the lead agency. She said we had suggested several different possibilities
at that time, but did not believe we came to any conclusion regarding a lead agency.
She requested the minutes be changed to reflect this.
Mr. Aarons also stated that the Agenda for today's meeting was incorrectly
formatted. The agenda needs to have "Action Items" indicated, before any action can
be taken.
Ms. OfDonnell stated that none of the support team were aware of a certain format
needed for the agenda or minutes. The procedure used was typical of meetings at
DHS. The agenda for today's meeting was developed with the two Co-Chairpersons.
October 1.9, 1994 (Amended) Child Care Standards Review Committee
Page 2 Arizona Department of Health Services
Mr. Aarons made a motion to postpone approval of the October 5 minutes until the
November 2 meeting, at which time they will be redrafted in the correct format. The
motion carried.
11. ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE PROCESS ISSUES
Ms. OfDonnell reported that a number of points came up while preparing today's
agenda. She reviewed the proposed agenda, stating that the bulk of time would be
spent on Item V. Square Footage and Staff-to-Children Ratios. She also stated a
desire to develop a firm timeline for the Committee to develop the recommendations
and report by the 12/31 194 due date.
O'Donnell stated that Steve Broe and Sue Braga will be alternating as Chairpersons
for the meetings. The Chairperson will open and close the meetings and call for
votes. She will be in support of the chairs, attempting to keep the Committee on
track.
OfDonnell, Broe and Braga had compiled Guidelines for Meeting Communication.
Group consensus was preferred. Broe stated that he felt too much emphasis on
formal structure will inhibit free speech, however it does need to be formal for
decision making. O'Donnell said they would like to identify areas the group a~reed
upon as a starting point for recommendations.
Ill. ADDITIONAL DATA REQUESTED
OfDonnell stated that there had been a request from the lmplementation Team for
clarification with regard to "cost" information needed. Ms. Nelson stated that costs
in different parts of the country are very different from the West. We need to know
the affordability factor. Ms. Kamin stated that cost information depends on what we
are talking about. She said we may need to talk about cost after we have completed
the square footage and staff-to-child ratios. OtDonnell stated that an issue was
raised last time that without the cost information, the reports were not as useful. The
lmplementation Team then tried to gather cost information, but what kind of cost
information was not clear to them. Nelson stated it was a component of affordability.
Mr. Zabicki reported that States determine market rates, and that not all are required
to conduct market rate surveys. There is no conformity between state to state on
this type of survey. There is no information that will identify this number across the
board. It would have to be created, but that might not be possifrle.
Mr. DeMenna felt that if such cost information was available, the Committee would
be adding a third column laid out along side of the current data, including whatever
the other states' data is.
October 19, 1994 (Amended) Child Care Standards Review Committee
Page 3 Arizona Department of Health Services
IV. DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION OF KEY TERMINOLOGY AND ISSUES
By Committee request, Agenda Item IV was skipped in favor of moving to the next
topic.
V. SQUARE FOOTAGE AND STAFF-TO-CHILDREN RATIO
Aarons stated that it is the obligation of the Committee to prepare by December 31,
1994, how to apply square footage requirements and staff-to-child ratios. There are
three questions involved: 1) Are current ratio requirements a problem; 2) What would
be the circumstance of applying those to the public sector; and 3) Gathering the
evaluation from the public sector on applying those standards. I would like to hear
from public or private sectors regarding any discriminatory problems, and then would
like to hear problems of regulations on each sector. Kamin and Aarons expressed their
desire not to become bogged down with other information. Aarons stated that he
wanted to know about what is happening in our state, before he looked at data from
other states.
Nelson stated first we have to decide if we do have a problem. People in the industry
seem comfortable now, but by the same token, we have to watch if any change
should occur. What we do may make it impossible for the private sector to expand.
We could have a tremendous affect. Aarons questioned if it is because the private
sector is under certain zoning requirements and the public sector providing comparable
care is not under these zoning requirements, there is a competitive disadvantage.
Next, would an application of rules private is under, if applied to public, affect them.
He would like testimony by private and public sector, and thinks that is more
important than data we can gather.
Kamin stated that the Committee's focus is square footage. She asked if a square
footage of 25 per child, depending upon age, is a problem. Nelson stated that it did
not seem to be a problem for private sector. Kamin asked if it is a problem for the
public sector. We need to find that out for Arizona, as well as whether the
staff-to-child ratio is a problem.
O1DonneIl asked if the Committee should go any further in attempting to collect this
data. DeMenna said he didn't feel it was a problem to get any data that has already
been gathered and put it into an extra column. This extra information is not as
important as our main focus of square footage and staff-to-child ratio, but if the state
has the information, we should get it.
Shipley wanted to know who the private and public sectors were accountable to.
Broe suggested looking at the differences between the private and public sectors.
October 19, 1994 (Amended) Child Care Standards Review Committee
Page 4 Arizona Department of Health Services
DeMenna stated he believed the private sector was willing to consent the point that
the current standards are adequate at this time.
Aarons stated that he was ready to hear anyone who wished to testify on the issues.
He suggested suspending the agenda and going directly to public comment.
Presentation on Sauare Footaqe and Staff-to-Child Ratios
OIDonnell stated that Gary Fortney of the Department of Education had prepared new
information within the last two weeks with regard to square footage and staff-to-child
ratios. Mr. Fortney stated that he distributed a survey to all Arizona schools and
districts, giving them an opportunity to respond on their situation regarding square
footage requirements and staff-to- child ratios. Due to time restrictions, only 22 were
received back. Eleven met ADHS and the others exceeded it. There is only about
a 10% representation here, but 50% said there was no problem. There are 21 6
districts with approximately 1,160 schools. All of the respondents met Arizona
Health Services Rules and Regulations. (See attached survey)
VII. PUBLIC COMMENT
Anne Book of the Cave Creek School district was introduced. She stated that only
one school in the district was used for child care. We have chosen to follow the
guidelines of the Health Department. DeMenna questioned Book, stating that the
District adheres to the Health Department guidelines, but does not have a license.
Book stated that Department of Economic Security visits them as well as the
Department of Education. There is not a person from the Department of Health that
visits. The parents also oversee the program.
Evelyn Holbrook of the Cave Creek District stated we aim for a ratio of 10 children per
child care provider. Nelson questioned why the DHS has jurisdiction. Holbrook stated
that they applied their qualifications to obtain their support.
Kamin stated the evidence suggests that the DHS guidelines are being met or
exceeded in public schools.
Renee Chambers of the Madison School District was introduced. She referenced
Quality Criteria as one of their sources. They provide 35 square feet of usable floor
space indoors and 75 square feet of space outdoors per child. Number of instructors
varied with age. The ratio is 1 to 12 for 6 to 8 year olds and the same for 9 and up.
We use ASQ rules as a tool. We have a team regularly evaluating and overseeing our
program. We seek to exceed what is offered by the private sector. Size has not been
an issue. Aarons asked if their District would be adverse to applying the standards
required for the private sector to their operation. Ms. Chambers said no.
October 19, 1994 (Amended) Child Care Standards Review Committee
Page 5 Arizona Department of Health Services
There was discussion between Bell and DeMenna regarding school "programs." Kevin
quoted those as being "custodial care outside of normal school hours." The Cave
Creek District expressed concern should square footage and staff regulations be
applied to other types of programs which were academic and instructional. Kamin
felt the Committee needed to be clear on what types of programs their
recommendations would effect within the public schools.
Kim Phifer of the Kyrene School District was introduced. She stated that regarding
staff-to-child ratios, the district's policy was 1-10 for ages 5 - 7, 1-1 2 for 7 and up.
There is a committee of Board members and parents overseeing. We are in line with
the Madison district. The School Board supervises the program. She was asked if
they were inspected. Phifer stated that some committee members do come to
inspect, and they have not found any lack of compliance. Shipley questioned what
the consequences would be if they did find lack of compliance. Phifer stated it would
be reported to the School Board and written up with a plan for correction. A person's
job could be in jeopardy over a lack of compliance.
Marlene Morgan stated consequences for private sector lack of compliance on an
ongoing basis would include suspension, sanctions, civil penalties, revocation of
license. Bell asked what the consequences for a first time violation would be. Morgan
stated they would be written up and there would be discussion with the inspector of
how to co,ne under compliance. This becomes a matter of public record for private
centers.
Pat Brandenberger of the Osborne District was introduced. She stated that she has
worked in child care in both the private sector and now public. The school district is
way above private standards. In private, there is licensing and the health inspector
can be alerted. In the schools, if there is anything out of line, the School Board and
Superintendent are called immediately. Square footage is not really an issue for
schools because of the size of the facilities. We will not cram children into a small
space.
Bell stated that there seems to be a structure in place at the public level because of
the elected school boards. DeMenna stated that there seems to be a consensus
among the public sector that they are regulated by their clients. However, would we
want to use the same system for the private sector? Mr. Craig Barton stated that
there were approximately 540 regulations for the private sector, rather than
approximately 15 for the public. Bell stated that there are numerous regulations
which school districts have to operate under that we are not hearing here. There are
enormous numbers of regulations for the schools which cannot be discounted for child
care within the school. He didn't think we could ever do exactly the same thing in
private and public. We are looking at ways to get outside of boxes instead of into
them. He felt there could be equity, but not all the same.
October 19, 1994 (Amended) Child Care Standards Review Committee
Page 6 Arizona Department of Health Services
Braga affirmed the idea of comparable, but not exact, within the same range. Right
now we need to focus on the square footage and staff-to-child ratios. Regulations
might be a separate issue for after December 31. Aarons also stated that he wanted
to take care of the December 31 square footage and staff-to child requirement first.
The other issues may be addressed by June 30.
Duane Yourko stated that the motivation for programs between the public and private
sector are different. The schools are service organizations, whereas the private are
entrepreneurs who do generate profit, and that is why regulations have been needed
to prevent abuse.
Kamin stated she felt there was a general agreement that applying private sector
square footage and staff-to-child ratios to the public sector was not a big deal. Who
regulates is an issue. Shipley agreed that everyone seemed to feel comfortable with
size. Broe said it was important that we agree on some minimum standards.
Ms. Even requested a copy of the letter sent to the School Districts by Mr. Fortney.
The Committee recessed for 15 minutes at 3:45.
Broe called the meeting back to order. OIDonnell stated that she felt there had been
productive discussion and the Committee was moving closer to understanding each
other. She stated that there had been much discussion and quality of the
conversation was important, for which the committee is responsible. With regard to
our Guidelines for Meeting Communication, the Committee needs to determine what
is working and what is not. Nelson felt the Committee needed to learn how to
disagree agreeably, and not be insulting. Shafir request that there not be side
conversations, in that everyone might benefit from those discussions. Aarons stated
that he resented process orientation. He felt it was a waste of his time and he
wanted to get directly back to the issue of square footage and staff-to-child ratios.
Aarons suggested that the Chairs appoint four persons to a subcommittee. Those
four people should establish a draft document on the square footage and staff-to
children ratios and also delineate what types of programs. They would then be
responsible to present this as a draft report we could take public comment on and act
upon. Even if the Committee does not agree upon such document, we could at least
take public testimony.
DeMenna stated that he was hearing a high degree of consensus and that possibly the
Committee could put something on paper now.
October 19, 1994 (Amended) Child Care Standards Review Committee
Page 7 Arizona Department of Health Services
there are those of us not familiar with legislative process. If we are going to operate
in that manner, then we need to all be made familiar with the process so that we are
not belittled. She felt it is critical to move ahead, but that she did not know the rules
right now.
Bell supported the subcommittee idea and stated he would like to see something on
paper. He stated he is relying on the Chairs for procedure, and would like to see the
subcommittee information provided in a timely manner.
Broe stated he liked action, not a subcommittee. He asked what the problem would
be with a straw vote. Aarons stated that it is not allowed. We cannot take an
unannounced vote. Aarons suggested having the subcommittee draft submitted a
week before the next Committee meeting.
Kamin asked if the Committee was mandated to go throughout the State for
comment by December 31. Aarons stated that the Committee should break into three
committees to go .out and get the testimony. Marlene Morgan stated that open
meeting law information was provided in the Committee's packet.
DeMenna suggested the following statement for the subcommittee:
"The CCSRC recommends that the existing adult to child ratios and square
footage requirements contained in (regulation) be extended to Arizona Public
Schools. This recommendation is intended to:
a. Become effective as provided under Chapter 5, Laws 1994, 9th
Special Session; and,
b. Meet the requirements of Section 4, Subsection A, Paragraph 6 of
that chapter.
The recommendation in no way speaks to the issue of enforcement or
administration of the adult to child ratios or square footage requirements."
Kamin stated the issue of public school "programs" still needs addressing, but that
this statement is a good starting point for a subcommittee. Even added that there
might be education laws that need to be referenced as well.
October 19, 1994 (Amended) Child Care Standards Review Committee
Page 8 Arizona Department of Health Services
Broe appointed the following subcommittee members:
Michael Bell
Steve Broe
Kevin DeMenna
Carol Kamin
A motion was made and approved to adopt the subcommittee. The subcommittee will
meet Monday, October 24 at 2:00 p.m. in this conference room.
Following discussion regarding public hearings on the issue of square footage and
staff-to-children ratios, it was recommended that public hearings be properly noticed
and scheduled for December 7 in the six DHS Districts commonly utilized for such
hearings.
VI. MEETING EVALUATION
OIDonnell requested feedback on the group process.
Positive
DeMenna felt that it had been a positive meeting and moved along well. The
environment was good. Broe felt there had been frank discussion of issues and a
strong flow of conversation. Shipley commented that we did achieve an outcome of
getting one task on the right track, we moved forward.
Negative
Barton felt the Committee tended to get off-track. Kamin felt tension with regard to
process. She felt the Committee had good information, could talk to each other, but
was feeling crunched by the time frame. Shipley would like to see the facilitator
keep the Committee on track with regard to the topic of discussion. Aarons stated
the Chairperson is in charge of the meeting, with the facilitator assisting on the
discussion of a particular issue.
With regard to the minutes and agenda for the next meeting, Aarons stated that
Shirley Anderson agreed to submit samples and that Staff should help put together
the agenda, with the Co-Chairs approving and circulating it. He also stated that all
meetings of the Committee should be declared public hearings.
October 19, 1994 (Amended) Child Care Standards Review Committee
Page 9 Arizona Department of Health Services
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Broe stated that he enjoyed the meeting and felt it was productive. DeMenna made
a motion to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Jayne Brennan
for PRISM, Inc. Consultants
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 19,1994
NAME
Irene Jacobs
Jackie Lewis
Joy Bauer
Linda Valdez
Shirley Anderson
Evelyn Holbrook
Anne Baok
Shirley Branham
Gary A. Fortney
Tony Zabicki
Rene Manning
Billie Barnes
Lana Horn
Rosalie Lopez
Dianne S. Crismon
Renee Chambers
Kim Phifer
Jane Romatzke
Lois Zimmerman
Mirhod Fransbe
Kithy Hermes
Pat Brandenberger
Lance Johnson
ORGANIZATION
Children's Action Alliance
ACCA, Northern
ACCA, Northern Chapter
Arizona Republic
AZ House of Rep./Health Com.
Cave Creek Unified Sch. Dist.
Cave Creek School
ASU
ADE - Staff
DES - Staff
ADHS
Roosevelt Head Start
Roosevelt Head Start
ADHS
Greater Phx. Ed. Mgt. Council
Madison Sch. Dist. #38
Kyrene School District
City of Tempe (TASEP)
Washington School District
House Minority Staff
Creighton School District
Osborn School District
Senate Research Staff
ADDRESS
4001 N. 3rd St., # I 60, Phoenix
8808 N. Central, Phoenix 85020
8808 N. Central, Phoenix 85020
Box 426, Cave Creek 85331
Box 426, Cave Creek 85331
Box 8374, Phoenix 85066
1535 W. Jefferson, Phoenix 85007
1789 W. Jefferson, Phoenix 85007
1740 W. Adams, #200, Phx. 85007
6000 S. 7th St., Phoenix 85040
6000 S. 7th St., Phoenix 85040
1740 W. Adams, Phoenix 85007
4502 N. Central, Phoenix 8501 2
5601 N. 16th St., Phoenix 8501 5
8700 S. Kyrene, Tempe 85284
3500 S. Rural, Tempe 85282
7337 N. 19th Ave., Phoenix 85021
1700 W. Washington, Phoenix 8501 3
2702 E. Flower St., Phoenix 8501 6
1226 W. Osborn St., Phoenix 8501 3
Capitol Complex, Phoenix 85007
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 19,1994
NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS
Mark Romens ACCA 1830 S. Alma School, Mesa 8521 0
Sue Lefebvre VSAEYC 61 02 N. 14th St., Phoenix 85014
Jane Wernehin
Dave Yourko
Craig Barton
Steve Broe
Sue Braga
Nedda Shafir
Barry M. Aarons
Michael J. Bell
Kevin De Menna
Barbara Nelson
Chuck Shipley
Brenda Even
Yayne Yates
Susan A. Benson
Ironwood Pr. School
Representing Judy Walruff
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
OCCL - Staff
Lesley Schiraldi OCCL - Staff
Pat Ripley OCCL - Staff
Catherine Mulligan OCCL - Staff
Mary Howard Admin.Services,Assoc.Dir-Staff
14850 N. 39th Ave., Phoenix 85023
41 10 W. Northern, Phoenix
1647 E. Morten Ave., #230, Phoenix
85020
1647 E. Morten Ave., #230, Phoenix
85020
1647 E. Morten Ave., #230, Phoenix
85020
1647 E. Morten Ave., #230, Phoenix
85020
1647 E. Morten Ave., #230, Phoenix
85020
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 19,1994
NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS
Marlene Morgan OCCL - Staff
Virginia Blair ADHS - HCCLS
1647 E. Morten Ave., #230, Phoenix
85020
1647 E. Morten Ave., #220, Phoenix
85020
MEETING MINUTES
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1994
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Broe, Michael Bell, Kevin DeMenna, Carol Kamin, Judy
Walruff
STAFF PRESENT: Marlene Morgan, ADHS, Pat Ripley, ADHS, Camille Ferrari, ADHS
AUDIENCE PRESENT: Rosalie Lopez, ADHS, Don Schmid, ADHS, Mark Romens,
ACCA, Barbara Robey, Arizona School Boards Assoc.
* DHS staff began recording minutes at this point.
Carol Kamin questioned whether public school programs should have the same
standards as private.
Kevin DeMenna requested input from the Department of Health Services.
Discussion regarding cooperative program for teenage mothers.
Marlene Norgan was requested to give a definition of "Premise."
Marlene sited on the following:
"not on premises of a facility"
A parent, guardian or custodian is not in the building or an annex to the building
where child care is being provided. An annex is defined as an area which
shares common ground with the building. If an annex is an outdoor area, it
must be close enough so that a parent, guardian or custodian is responsible for
the care, supervision and guidance of their child, especially in case of an
accident or emergency. An area 500 ft. from the building where child care is
being provided is presumed to be an "annex" for the purpose of this definition.
Carol Kamin stated that on-premise programs should co-mply with DHS state child
ratios and square footage.
Mark Romens stated he had a problem with 14 and 15 year olds being aids. All
agreed that they would have to be 16 years of age or older.
October 24, 1994
Page 2
Child Care Standards Review Subcommittee
Arizona Department of Health Services
Gary Fortney and Michael Bell discussed the problem with 14 and 15 year olds being
counted in the ratios as staff. It was agreed that in the HeroIStrive programs at the
high school level only 16 year-olds be counted in the ratios. Tennage parents who are
under the age of 16 who were participating in the program may be present with
supervision but shall not be counted in the ratios.
A discussion followed regarding the presence of Dads who were not participating in
the Hero program. If not taking the course, they will not be counted in ratios
regardless of age.
This was agreed by all present.
Child Development and Child Care Education Programs shall be exempt.
Pat Ripley stated that a baby be counted in the child ratio even though the mother is
present.
DHS will develop language regarding teenage mothers taking child development
classes and if they can be counted in the ratios.
Committee discussed several federal programs that are excluded:
migrant programs
special education programs
bi-lingual
Indian
It was agreed that federally funded mandated programs that meet or exceed
requirement regarding square footage and ratios be exempted. This does not include
Chapter I or Head Start Programs.
Gary Fortney stated that special education children federally funded are contracted out
to private agencies.
Gary gave the ratios for special ed. children 3-4 years olds 1 :6; 1 :3 recommended.
There was a discussion regarding federally mandated programs and how they are
regulated.
Steve Broe questioned whether or not private programs would ever be mandated.
It was reiterated 14 and 15 year olds will not be counted in HeroIStrive programs and
statute will have to be augmented.
October 24, 1994
Page 3
Child Care Standards Review Subcommittee
Arizona Department of Health Services
Child Care occupation 15 years of age or under does not count. Must be 16 or older.
Staff to implement language and present to the Attorney General's office for approval
before submitting to Committee. Exemptions are to be added to the language.
Marlene sugested that Gary Fortney assist DHS staff. Gary advised he will be out of
town.
Marlene asked if group homes should be addressed regarding square footage and
ratios. Steve Broe stated he was comfortable with Centers only.
Kevin DeMenna requested DHS staff to obtain Attorney General's opinion for the
following:
1. premises;
2. compensation;
3. extended day-kindergarten programs.
Committee requested DHS staff to have a draft by the end of the business day
Thursday, October 27, 1994. Also requested that the information be faxed to
Michael Bell.
Steve Broe requested public comment. None given.
Meeting adjourned 4:00 p.m.
* Minutes taken by Camille Ferrari, DHS staff.
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
October 24, 1994
Called to order by at 2:47 pm
The draft resolution under consideration was already read by the chairman.
Kevin DeMenna suggested that they need to develop a framework. He said that A
and B are too specific and that we should stipulate on an inclusionary and
exclusionary basis. What programs are subject to regulation and which programs are
not intended to be subject to regulation.
Carol Kamin said they need a list of programs. She requested help from the audience.
What programs in schools should be subject to regulation?
Michael Bell, Ph. D., Chapter 1 preschool, Evenstart (babysitting components not
preschool but educational and during the course of the school day).
Kevin DeMenna referenced paragraph 3 of 883-04 which talks about public school
exemptions. He stated there are clear exceptions. He mentioned the private sector
interest in such issues as the center on a high school campus for day care.
Carol Kamin suggested that Chapter 1 and at-risk preschool would be required to
comply with regulations.
Michael Bell, Ph.D., In reference to public school exemptions he mentioned the section
where for children who are not enrolled in 1-1 2 that portion providing day care is
subject to the standards. What is the definition of day care?
Carol Kamin said that daycare was defined in statute in Title 36.
Gary Fortney, Dept. of Education, said that the Attorney General has defined daycare
to include compensation.
Mr. Chairman? said that the issue of compensation is tied to daycare.
Gary Fortney said that compensation could be trading.
Michael Bell, Ph.D., said that for special programs and special education programs
which are federally funded, you don't want to constrain academic efforts.
Carol Kamin said that a list might include the portion of the schools where the
following programs exist: after school daycare, preschool, afterschool, chapter1 , and
federal special education programs.
Child Care Standards Review Subcommittee
October 24, 1994
Page 2
Michael Bell, Ph.D., said we need to give latitude to the schools to bring federal
programs in-house.
Kevin DeMenna said he wants it to be simple.
Michael Bell, Ph. D., asked about extended day kindergarten.
Gentleman from the audience said that Scottsdale district is required to become
licensed.
Kevin DeMenna asked that the committee obtain a copy of the Attorney General
opinions.
Carol Kamin asked what is kindergarten and what is daycare? She told a story about
Madison school where extended daycare was taught by a teacher but was charging
a nominal fee for instruction. A.G. says they need to be licensed?
Kevin DeMenna suggested that one is compensation and the other is property taxes.
Carol Kamin brought up what may also be included here such as Chapter 1, Evenstart,
Federal Programs, migrant and indian programs.
Kevin DeMenna suggested that they could prepare a list of all included but that the
list would inevitably have an ommission.
Michael Bell, Ph.D., said that simplicity is the key.
* Minutes taken by Danielle Malody prior to the arrival of DHS staff.
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
OCTOBER 24, 1994
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Steve Broe
Michael J. Bell
Kevin DeMenna
Carol Kamin
Judy Walruff
STAFF MEMBERS:
Marlene Morgan, DHS
Pat Ripley, DHS
Camille Ferrari, DHS
Gary Fortney, ADE
AUDIENCE PRESENT:
Rosalie Lopez, ADHS
Don Schmid, ADHS
Mark Romens, ACCA
Barbara Robey, Arizona School Boards Association
1.
II.
111.
IV.
v.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
Capitol Building, 8th Floor Conference Room
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
November 2, 1994
2:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to OrderIDeclaration of Quorum
Election of Committee Co-Chairs
Approval of Minutes
1. Meeting of October 5, 1994
2. Meeting of October 19, 1994
Committee OrganizationIProcedure
1. Adoption of Rules of Order
2. Selection of Parliamentarian
3. Subcommittee Policy
Scope of Committee Mandate under
Senate Bill 1005
Proposed Standards for Square Footage and
Staff Ratios in Public School-based Child Care
Facilities
1. Selection of Working Subcommittee to
Draft Standards for Review
2. Public Comment Process
a. Meeting Locationsrrimetable
b. Meeting Chairperson Assignments
c. Public Notices
d. Agenda for Meetings
3. Subcommittee Recommendation on
Proposed Standards
Next Steps
Other Business
Date of Next Meeting(s1
Call to the Public
Adjournment
Action
Action
Action
Action
Action
Action
Action
Review
Action
Action
Discussion/Action
Discussion
Discussion/Action
Action
Action
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1994
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Braga, Judy Walruff, Barbara Nelson, Craig Barton, Nedda
Shafir, Kevin DeMenna, Michael J. Bell, Carol Kamin, Steve Broe, Chuck Shipley,
Brenda Even, Barry M. Aarons
STAFF PRESENT: Implementation Team for SB 1005: Virginia Blair, Gary Fortney,
Mary Howard, Marlene Morgan, Catherine Mulligan, Lynda Rahi, Pat Ripley, Lesley
Schiraldi
FACILITATOR: Margaret OIDonnell, PRISM, Inc.
I. CALL TO ORDER 1 DECLARATION OF QUORUM
The meeting was called to order at 2:09 p.m. by Co-Chair Sue Braga. She stated the
Committee had enough members present for a quorum. She also advised that the
agenda would be followed in order as written.
11. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CO-CHAIRS
Nedda Shafir made a motion to approve Sue Braga and Steve Broe as Co-Chairpersons
for the Child Care Standards Review Committee. Barry Aarons seconded the motion.
All were in favor.
Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Oct. 5 & Oct. 19, 1994
Braga stated that the minutes of October 5 had been redrafted to be reflective of the
format provided by Shirley Anderson. Aarons moved to dispense with the reading of
the minutes for October 5 and October 19 and approve them as distributed. Bell
seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Corrections to the minutes of October 19 were noted as follows. Nelson stated that
on page 2, Item Ill, paragraph 2, she felt Tony Zabicki had made the statements
reported rather than Mr. Bell. Aarons noted the misspelling of his name. Nelson
corrected the statement on page 3, paragraph 2, "What we do may make it difficult
for the private sector to expand". She stated that the word "difficult" should be
replaced with "impossible". Nelson also noted on page 4, paragraph 2, the
abbreviation "DHS" should be replaced with "DES" in the sentence "Nelson
questioned why the DHS has jurisdiction."
November 2, 1994
Page 2
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
Broe made a motion to accept the amended minutes. Aarons seconded the motion.
The motion was unanimously approved.
IV. COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION 1 PROCEDURE
Braga stated that the following are housekeeping issues. She said that the Committee
needed to accept their rules of order as the Roberts Rules. Shipley moved to continue
utilizinq the Roberts Rules. Aarons seconded and the motion was unanimously
approved.
Braga stated that the Committee needed to select a Parliamentarian. Aarons was
suggested as Parliamentarian. Braga asked for those in favor of Aarons as
Parliamentarian. All were in favor.
Braga stated that the Committee needed to determine if there would be a policy for
the subcommittees, such as a chairman or any following of procedure. Shipley asked
if that would not be covered under the Roberts Rules of Order, as well as the fact that
the Committee Go-Chairs have the right to select committee members. The
Committee agreed with the continued use of the Roberts Rules of Order, and with
Shipley's statement regarding selection of committee members. Kamin felt that under
most or all circumstances it was important for DHS Staff assist with the
subcommittees. Braga stated it was particularlv important DHS be at subcommittee
meetinqs for minutes or anv other information required.
V. SCOPE OF COMMITTEE MANDATE UNDER SENATE BILL 1005
BI-aga provided a hand-out noting the Exemptions to Senate Bill 1005.
Shipley asked if there was a roster of public present. Marlene Morgan stated that
there is a sign-in sheet at every meeting.
Braga stated that the Committee needed to go over the exemptions to understand
that the legislative intent was not to include group homes and other exemptions as
you see on the list handed out. She advised that Shirley Anderson clarified that
under Senate Bill 1005, this is an interim lay committee to follow the open meeting
laws and it is not a legislative committee.
Marlene Morgan stated that there is an exemption that has been left off, #7, which
is the Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind. It is in the longer packet, but not in the
list which was handed out.
November 2, 1994
Page 3
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
VI. PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE AND STAFF RATIOS
IN PUBLIC SCHOOL-BASED CHILD CARE FACILITIES
Braga stated that again there is a housekeeping item here, and she called for a motion
to ratify the subcommittee. Bell stated that the Committee did not need to do that.
Aarons stated that the Co-Chairs have the authority to appoint the subcommittee.
Braga asked Marlene Morgan to address the issue of the Public Comment Process.
Morgan referred to the packet handed out. She stated that she had gotten
clarification from the Department and we are not bound bv the 30 dav public hearinq
notices. There is a list of dates in the packet which will serve as a timeline, and will
allow us to get the information back to the Committee from these public hearings by
the December 7 meeting.
Shipley asked if Morgan really felt there would be a turn out for the public hearing in
Flagstaff on a Friday evening between 5 and 8 p.m. Morgan stated that we are
somewhat boxed in with regard to available times. She also stated that she often
hears the public request an evening time as being best. She also stated these are
tentative dates and the Committee may change them if desired. Nelson stated that
based on past history in Tucson, people will be there. Broe felt there would be a turn
out because of the high interest in the issue.
Kamin requested that the Committee discuss format for the public hearings. Shipley
stated that it is his experience that when you have a public hearing, it is to receive
input from the public, but not to debate issues. If questions are asked, we do not
necessarily have to have the answers at that time, but we should be able to note
those questions and get back to the individual. Mostly we will be sitting and listening
to what people have to say.
Morgan stated that the question before the Committee is whether they approve of the
draft letter and do they want it sent out. We will put notices in the public
newspapers, but in addition to that, would you like to have a mailing go out and to
whom. There are over 1,500 private providers which we can mail to. Braga stated
that the information should probably go to the Superintendents of schools in all the
Districts. Shipley felt the 1,500 providers should receive the mailing, since this will
affect them. Bell stated that he could provide the list of Superintendents, and also
gqsested that the ~ r i n c i ~ aolfs in dividual schools also receive anv mailing, being the
site managers. Morgan stated anv mailins labels Bell could provide would help.
Barton asked about schools that are not part of the public schools. Morgan stated
that she would not have any information on them, and would request direction from
the Committee. Walruff asked if there was also a list of teen parent proqrams, and
that thev be included as well. Even asked about the Parks & Recreation Districts.
Braga felt they might as well be notified, although there was question as to whether
November 2, 1994
Page 4
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
they fell under the exemptions. DeMenna stated that in theory, under Paragraph 6
they are like the school for the deaf and blind, and more or less outside the scope of
what we are about. Bell stated that it might be appropriate to contact the Z
non-profit aqencies administrative offices (Head Start). The information might go to
the site, but not administration. Morgan stated that their mailing list currently goes
to the administrative offices.
The Committee agreed upon the following representatives at the public hearings:
LOCATION MEMBERS Morgan stated that Staff could be available at
the Flagstaff meeting. Yuma was more
Flagstaff Bell difficult. The Committee asreed that thev
Braga would like Staff present at all the public hear-h.
Morgan wanted to be sure the Committee
approved of the proposed letter, agenda and
Yuma Broe attachments that were to go out in the mailing.
Walruff She also stated the Committee would need to
(Shipley) sign the letter.
Shipley stated that he had a question on
Phoenix Barton Agenda Item #3. Will there be a Staff member
Kamin present to give the background, or will this be
Shafir up to the Committee members? Morgan stated
that it could be done either way. Kamin re-quested
that if a Committee member is respon-
Tucson Aarons sible for reporting on background, that a Staff
Nelson member write down what should be said, so
Shipley that all Committee members say the same
thing. Morsan stated that thev will prepare
a script.
Walruff asked that Staff set up protocol in terms.of how long a person might speak.
Aarons stated that a normal standard is a five minute limit. He also susqested the use
of sisn-in sheets for each person and that they hand that in to the Chair so that the
Chair can call people one at a time on a first come, first served basis. Those sign-up
sheets should also have the name and address and any affiliation they wish to declare.
Shafir stated that in reading the proposed letter, it was not clear as t o why the
Committee is getting public input. She felt there needed to be a statement of whv the
Committee is tosether and their timeline, with reference to the Senate Bill. This might
lend itself to any further hearings.
November 2, 1994
Page 5
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
Morgan stated that due to the time restraints, she needed to know who would have
the authority to approve the revised language. The Co-Chairs would have approval.
Broe requested that Braga approve the language.
Subcommittee Recommendation on Proposed Standards
Braga stated that Margaret OIDonnell will facilitate this portion of the meeting,
soliciting comments or recommendations from the Committee on the proposed
standards submitted by the subcommittee.
OrDonnell stated that Committee members received a two-page detailed
subcommittee recommendation in their packets. She stated the process to be used
for this portion of the meeting will be to go around to each Committee member for
questions, clarifications or comments they may have. We will go through one at a
time.
Kamin requested to go first as she had revisions to the subcommittee recom-mendations,
based on conversations she has had, which no one has seen as of yet.
Aarons requested that in the future anv hand-outs be dated and time stam~edfo r
easier referencing during meetings.
Kamin went through the differences between the draft which was mailed to
Committee members and the one she handed out at the meeting, in detail.
OrDonnell stated that members now had both the original draft and the revised draft
of the recommendations. We will now move through the rest of the Committee
members for comment.
Bell pointed out a clarification to Footnote #2. He stated that some program names
were incorrect. Native American BIA program should read American Indian Education
Programs. Programs for Children with Special Needs should read Special Education.
DeMenna stated that on parasraph 7 of A, where it says "school aged children" on
the revised version, for purposes of readability, it should sav "until Januarv 1, 1996."
Shafir had no comment.
Barton stated that he was wondering what a 16 year old parent is to the public
school. He wondered why this is in consideration of what the Committee is doing.
Walruff said this has to do with a lack of clarification as to who is allowed in the
center. Therefore, we wanted to make it clear that there are 15 year old parents
whose children are in the center. Broe stated that he had heard the concern that teen
November 2, 1994
Page 6
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
mothers who walk into the center might be counted as a child, and this would
eliminate that. Broe said they could also be counted as an adult, and this makes it
clear that they are neither. Barton asked if they are neither, then what are they?
Walruff clarified that if they are 16 or older, they may have duties in the center.
They may be counted as a volunteer. If they are under 16, they are considered as
simply parents. In the past, they were considered as a child while in the center, and
this will help to clarify the situation. Shafir added that there are special needs
teenagers in our centers that are counted in the ratios, as they are being cared
for in the center. Broe stated that he felt if a teen parent had their child in a private
center, they would be treated in the same manner.
Nelson had a question regarding fingerprinting of 16 year olds in the centers. This
item was placed on a list for future discussion. Nelson also had a question about
federally mandated programs which may be exempted. She wondered if all the
programs were listed. Kamin stated that those were all the ones they could come up
with. DeMenna stated that if a new Federally mandated program is passed, it would
come under these.
Bell stated that the language should possibly be "Federally Mandated Programs"
rather than "Federally Mandated Child Care Programs". He said that Federal
regulations will supersede anything we do. Title One, Chapter One perhaps would be
wise to include and actually list. He stated that Even Start Programs should be
included as point of discussion, because they will probably come up at public hearing.
Nelson stated that just because it is a Federal program, does not necessarily mean it
is a good program. Federally mandated programs do not always have all the answers.
O1Donnell listed Nelson's concerns to be addressed in the future.
Morgan stated that there was a form in the packets for programs to be listed and
what their Federal standards are.
Walruff stated she felt the revised draft was clear.
Aarons stated that with the corrections, he was fine.
Even stated that she wanted to be sure she understood school aged children. Kamin
asked how DHS defines school aged children. They must be 5 before September 1.
Pat Ripley stated that a child is up to age 14.
Shipley stated that it was the charge of the Committee to come up with recom-mendations
on staffing ratios and square footage. He questioned terminology in the
revised draft. He felt the use of ratios and standards should be consistent. Aarons
-suas est usinq lanquaqe found on pase 3, line 20 of the bill. Shipley stated a problem
November 2, 1994
Page 7
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
with item E l , and felt it should be broken into three separate items, or use and/or.
DeMenna suggested an attempt a new wording.
Broe stated that he liked the revised draft provided by Kamin. He wished to restate
his concern that when speaking of Federally mandated child care programs, these
could be private programs, and that our intent is also that if they meet or exceed
square footage and staffing ratios that they are also treated in the same manner as
the public school program. O'Donnell asked if the language allowed for this. Broe
said he believed it did.
Shafir mentioned that there was a lot of co-mingling of funds in terms of Federal and
State programs. Whose regulations would be followed? Is it always the Federal
regulations, and who makes that determination. Shafir felt this question would come
up at the public hearings. Shafir also wondered what effects the co-mingling of a
private facility with a public school program would have. Kamin stated that she
thought we were saying that if you get Federal money, you may co-mingle it with
State money, but in order to receive that Federal money and operate that program,
you need to comply with certain staff-child ratios and square footage. O'Donnell
asked what needs to happen to the recommendation to cover this point. DeMenna
stated that in effect the decision of the subcommittee recommendations was that if
it is Federally mandated, and if it has standards that meet or exceed those in Arizona
presently, it's ok. If it doesn't, if it's a Federal option, or if it's a mandate and the
standards are less than ours, then it comes under the ratios. O'Donnell stated this
item sounded like something to be aware of and be very clear about at the public
meetings, possibly in the scripting.
DeMenna commented that he felt the language the Committee is working with closely
parallels that of the DHS and he would like to see that continued parity. He stated
that he hopes for an ongoing comparably uniform parity. This would be a parallel
regulation along side of what is here presently. He stated that he would hate to see
that in 5 years down the road, one regulation would be raised or lowered without the
other being revised as well.
Kamin stated that the information provided the Committee by DHS tells us clearly that
most states far exceed our ratios and our square footage by tremendous amounts.
She stated that she realized that our purpose right now is not to deal with this
tough issue of ratios, but she stated in looking at this information, she had to swallow
hard because it is hard being the bottom 3 - 5 states. Shafir stated that she agreed
and that at some point we should address this. She also said that we don't address
group size, and she felt that with young children this is critical. O'Donnell asked if
this was an item to be added to the Committee's list for future work. DeMenna
stated that he was not sure it was an item for future Committee discussion. The
scope of what we are about is to lessen the regulatory burden on providers and to
November 2, 1994
Page 8
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
protect the health, safety and well-being of the children in all day care systems.
DeMenna stated that at some point that might be relevant. He did not feel it would
lessen the burden, but it might come under the health, safety and well-being.
OIDonnell stated she would put the item on the list.
Aarans stated someone needed to reread the revised draft to make sure we included
all the changes, and make it clear before we vote on it.
The Committee agreed to a recess to allow the subcommittee to meet and redraft the
recommendations to reflect the suggested changes.
Shafir restarted the meeting by thanking Marlene Morgan and the DHS Staff for the
incredible amounts of work and support they have given the Committee. Shafir stated
that she had also asked Morgan about other States' policies as to who is regulated
and who is not. She has made copies of this information and it is at the table.
Braga asked if the newly revised draft of the Subcommittee's recommendations is
acceptable to take to the public hearings. Shipley made a motion to accept the
revised draft dated November 2, 1994 of the Subcommittee Recommendations on
square footage requirements and staff-to-child ratios. Aarons seconded. Braga
asked for any questions. Bell noted that Footnote #2 still needed amending. The
motion was unanimously approved.
Walruff asked if the draft recommendations would be sent out with the proposed
mailinq. Morgan felt that it should go with the letter.
VII. NEXTSTEPS
OIDonnell provided a hand-out relative to "Next Steps" for the Committee, and
reviewed those steps as noted. She stated that she will be handling the process of
reviewing and summarizing the public comment received at the hearings. She will
then provide something easily readable for the Committee to review at its December
7 meeting.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
November 2, 1994
Page 9
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
fX. DATE OF NEXT MEETING(S1
Braga stated that the next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for November
16. Broe moved to cancel that meeting due to the public hearing schedule. Even
seconded and the motion was unanimously approved. Braga stated that our next
meeting will now be December 7 to present the public hearing information. The
December 7 meeting will be in this same conference room.
X. CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Diane Smith of the Greater Phoenix Education Council stated her thanks to the
Committee for allowing the public to comment, and to the DHS.
A representative from the Washington School District stated concern for outlying
areas such as Gila Bend and Kaibab to participate in the public hearing process.
Evelyn Holbrook of the Cave Creek District expressed concern with regard to
terminology. She stated that the term "child care" might effect her tutorial programs.
She felt a need to know exactly what the terms meant.
Barb Robey of the Arizona School Boards stated she will take the responsibility for
sending the agenda packets for the public meetings to members of that Association.
Following the public comments, Even asked if there would be an ability for write-in
comments from the public. Morgan stated that this was addressed in the letter, and
that comment may be submitted at the meetings or in writing to my office.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Shipley made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Kamin seconded and the motion was
unanimously accepted. The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jayne Brennan, for PRISM, Inc. Consultants
AGENDA
CHDiD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITI'EE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7,1994
CAPITAL BUILDING, 8th FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
1700 WEST WASHINGTON
PHOENN, ARIZONA
2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
PHONE: 255-1272
I. Call to OrderDecIaration of Quorum
IT. Approval of Minutes
1. Amended Minutes for Meeting of October 19,1994
2. Meeting of November 2,1994
m. Proposed Staff-to-ChiIdren and Square Footage Requirements
1. Review Summary of Public Meetings Testimony
2. Review Summary of Written Public Comments
3. Implications for 12/31/94 Recommendation
4. Committee Vote for Adoption of Proposed Standards
IV. Written Report of Findings and Recommendations
1. Timetable to meet 12/31/94 Due Date
2. Preparation of Draft Report
3. Committee Review and Final Approval
V. Next Phase of Committee Assignment
1. Determine Timetable for Committee Work
2. Schedule Meetings and Locations
VI. Other Business
VII. Call to the Public
VIU. Adjournment
Action
Action
Action
Discussion
Discussion
Discussion
Action
Action
Action
Action
Discussion
Action
Action
Discussion 1
Action
Action
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1994
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Barton, Michael J. Bell, Sue Braga, Steve Broe, Kevin
DeMenna, Brenda Even, Carol Kamin, Barbara Nelson, Nedda Shafir, Chuck Shipley,
Judy Walruff
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Barry Aarons
STAFF PRESENT-Implementation Team for SB 1005: Susan Benson, Gary Fortney,
Mary Howard, Marlene Morgan, Catherine Mulligan, Pat Ripley, Lesley Schiraldi, Tony
Zabicki
FACILITATOR: Margaret OIDonnell, PRISM, Inc.
1. CALL TO ORDER 1 DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chairperson Steve Broe called the meeting to order at 2:25 p.m. and declared a
quorum.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Bell made a motion to approve the minutes of the 10/1 9/94 meeting as amended.
Nelson seconded and the motion carried.
Shipley moved to approve the minutes of the 1 1/2/94 meeting. Walruff seconded and
the motion was approved.
Ill. PROPOSED STAFF-TO-CHILDREN AND SQUARE FOOTAGE
REQUIREMENTS
1. Review Summarv of Public Meetinqs Testimonv
O1Donneli stated that she had provided the Committee a summary of oral public
testimony made at the four public hearings, as well as summary of all written
statements received at the hearings or mailed in. She also provided the Committee
some supporting documentation. She stated that additional supporting material is
available at the DHS office.
December 7, 1994
Page 2
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
O'Donnell reviewed the dates and locations of the four public hearings, and stated that
she had attached the sign-in sheets from the meetings as well. She said that 31
persons provided oral comments between the four meetings. She stated that the
process she used to summarize the information was to review all of the comments
and draw from them major themes that came through. She reported that 15 of 31
speakers supported the proposed Staff-to-Children Ratios and Square Footage
Requirements.
With regard to item #2 on her summary, O'Donnell stated that she needed to make
a clarification. She had stated that 9 of 31 speakers expressed the opinion that the
proposed standards are too liberal, to be in the best interest of the children. She said
it had been suggested that the wording too liberal miqht be chansed to better reflect
the theme beinq portraved. That theme is that the proposed standards are not
perceived as beinq strict enouqh. O'Donnell said that many of these speakers referred
to the standards or guidelines recommended by various organizations such as the
National Association for Education of Young Children, American Academy of
Pediatrics, National Center for Clinical Infant Programs, and The American Public
Health Association. They felt those guidelines might provide better numbers for the
Committee to look at while reviewing the standards. It was requested that OIDonnell
spell out the names of the arjencies in her summarv.
Nelson commented that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Public
Health Association are the same. O'Donnell stated that many people had cited both.
Kamin said she thought they should both be cited. Bell stated that their standards
are ii collahrative effort by Goth organizations, and are usually referred to as
AAPIAPHA.
OIDonnell continued that 6 of 31 speakers voiced concern about how teenaqers and
teen parents are addressed in the staffinq ratios. She said this item mav need further
clarification.
Walruff stated that in Yuma there was concern that young people who had children
still needed supervision. This comment was made in an editorial fashion. She said
people did not seem to understand that we are treating all parents as parents.
Bell said that in Flagstaff a person commenting wanted the teenagers counted as
adults in the ratios. Shipley said that the item was brought up in Tucson as a matter
of clarification.
O'Donnell said another theme was that of timelv notification and dissemination of
information. She mentioned a group entitled the Life Management Educators who did
not receive any information until either just before or right after the Yuma meeting.
December 7, 1994
Page 3
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
An additional item for clarification that O'Donnell brought forth from the meeting
summaries was inside square footage requirement. Clarification was requested with
reqard to 35 square feet of activitv space for infants. O'Donnell referred to a copy
of Article 6, Section 603 passed out by staff. She said the issued centered around
recommendation B of the Revised Draft by the Committee. It seemed to be unclear
as to whether the 35 square feet included sleeping and activity area, and does this
mean just up to one year old, or up to the age of two. Broe stated it usually meant
up to 2 years. Shipley stated he felt the terminology needed to be changed to "less
than two years old". He also questioned if the 35 square feet for less than two years
old included the sleeping arrangements or not. Broe said the appropriate requlations
should be attached to the Committee's recommendation for clarification. Susan
Benson said that there is already a regulation in place about inclusion.
Shzfir felt the aqe factor miqht be siqnificant to school districts. Currently, for
acceptance into Kindergarten, a child must turn five prior to September 1. This
consistency has helped them a lot. .She felt the age factor needed to be made very
clear.
Marlene Morgan stated that this was not consistent with current regulations which
state 12 months or younger or under 18 months and not walking. O'Donnell asked
if the Committee's recommendation should then say up to 18 months instead of 1
year old child. Shafir asked about 2 vear olds who are not walkinq. Morgan said they
would be special needs and would be looked at individually. Shafir said lanquaqe
resardinq this miqht need to be added.
Shipley made a motion that the language in Paragraph B stated at least 35 square feet
for a child "less than two years old". Nelson seconded. Kamin asked staff if that
creates a problem. Morgan said no. Bell said to be consistent with Title 15, "on or
before their second birthday" should be used.
Nelson said she was trying to consider how this language could effect infant
providers. She said that DES will not pay for care until the child is exactly two. On
their birthday, funding would be provided. With the "less than 2" language, there is
net a floating day. Shipley said he chose "less than 2 years old" meaninq anv child
up to their birthdav. Shafir said this would present an issue for schools down the
line. Barton said Shipley's wording seemed more specific than "on or before".
Broe took a vote on the motion. Five were in favor, and six opposed. The motion
failed.
December 7, 1994
Page 4
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
Kamin made a motion to make the language in Paragraph B "on or before their second
birthday", if this would work for the three parties involved, DHS, private and schools.
Shafir seconded the motion. Shipley asked if the motion should be delayed to discuss
the item with the three parties involved.
Kamin stated that the educators wanted the language in her motion for consistency.
She asked Morgan i f the language in the motion would present a problem for DHS.
Morgan quoted from current regulations which state "a child is a person through the
age of 14". She continued that this will not effect us with through or to the age. Bell
stated that right now all legislation regarding early childhood has functioned as "on or
before".
Zabicki said a child turns the age on their birthday, so they are two on their birthday.
If you do it differently, doesn't this make it inconsistent with everything else in the
regulations?
Bell stated that his concern is not the floatinq dav, but five vear old entrv into school.
Entry into school does not relate to birthday. One, two or three year olds should not
cause too much problem. Kamin said she thought the Committee would end up
talking about this in the future as well because of the two separate systems getting
closer together in their regulations.
Nelson stated that this was a funding issue because centers will not be paid until that
child has that birthday. OIDonnell asked if the wording had a negative impact. Nelson
said it could have for one day a year. Kamin interjected that the Committee is only
applying this to square footage.
Broe said he did not think the issue would make a great deal of difference. Barton
thought this might be two different issues, compensation vs. square footage. Nelson
said she did not know how it would effect someone who takes infants and toddlers.
Sue Benson said it would make no difference from a licensing specialist's point of
view. She also said that with mixed groups, you utilize the square footage appropriate
for the youngest child in the group.
Even said that although we are only considering square footage now, it is important
to be consistent for the work we will be doing later. Kamin agreed with this.
Broe stated that public school programs are exempt from child care, so he felt there
were two different systems being discussed. Morgan offered another definition of
school age as "at least five years old by January 1 ". Shipley said he wanted to be
consistent with the wording for the child care field.
December 7, 1994
Page 5
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
Brenda Even amended the motion on the floor to change the language in Paragraph
B of the Committee's proposed requirements (Draft dated 11/2/94) to "up to the
second birthday." Kamin seconded. The motion was approved 1 1 to 1.
O'Donnell stated there was one more item of clarification regarding how the proposed
standards will apply to year-round school, enrichment programs and family education
programs. She asked whether the Committee felt there needed to be anv additional
lanquaqe modification for Item E.
Broe said he thought the Committee might need to look at the definition of "child
care".
Even mentioned the teen parent issue again, saying that in Tucson the public felt it
was not clear enough.
O'Donnell asked if these items could be addressed with attachments without changing
the Recommendation. Walruff said she would like to see somethinq other than an
amendment.
Bell stated that he felt schools for the most part were meeting or exceeding the
proposed recommendations. He expressed concern that special academic enrichment
and education advancement programs not be restricted. He would like to see the
Committee move ahead cautiously regarding these types of programs. All of the
items mentioned in 5b are special academic initiatives. He said we cannot foresee
what education will look like in the future. He said as we move forward he was
concerned that the Committee could be inhibiting educational advancement. Nelson
asked why these minimal standards would impact any program in a negative way.
She said everything she has seen says that we are too liberal. She could not see why
these new programs could not meet the standards. Bell stated that today that holds
true, but he didn't know about tomorrow, and wanted to move cautiously. DeMenna
stated that these regulations are not carved in stone. He didn't see anything that is
a problem in this area as of yet. Bell reiterated he did not want to see anv limit for
academic initiative in the state. Broe stated that these are the playing rules for the
private sector, who also has many different forms of programs. He didn't see why
the rules would not be acceptable for the public programs. Nelson mentioned that
concerns such as these for the future are why the regulations are reviewed every
two years.
December 7, 1994
Page 6
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
2. Review Summarv of Written Public Comments
O'Donnell stated that a total of 150 written comments were submitted by the public.
Ninety-one were mailed to DHS and fifty-nine were hand delivered at the four public
meetings. She noted the following major themes from the written comments:
1. Two-thirds of the public supported the standards.
2. Four expressed written comments that the standards are too liberal. O'Donnell
said this lanquaqe would be amended reqardinq too liberal as noted with the
oral comments.
3. Six did not support the proposed regulation of public school child care in
general. O'Donnell said she had attached some samples of the written
comments and others were available at DHS.
4. Twenty-one felt the requirements were acceptable, but wanted to extend the
exemptions to community education enrichment programs.
5. Sixteen felt further regulation of public school daycare was not necessary.
O'Donnell referenced an attached letter #5 and said the letter addressed
regulation in general.
6. Five additional letters again related to timely notification, or general unrelated
comments.
DeMenna made a motion to approve the adoption of the proposed standards and move
to Agenda Item IV. Shafir seconded. Even asked if the motion was to adopt the
proposed standards with the changes discussed at this meeting. Broe said yes. The
motion was approved.
After a 10 minute break, the Committee reconvened at 3:55 p.m. Chairperson Broe
stated that the Committee needed to turn in a report by December 31, and asked
O'Donnell for her recommendations on how to proceed.
O'Donnell suggested that, given the approval voted upon today by the Committee, it
move forward to drafting the report for 12/31. She said it was her goal to have such
a draft report re pared bv early next week for the Committee's review. She stated
that because of mail delivery problems in the past, it may be necessary to fax the draft
to Committee members to get their a ~ ~ r o vfoarl f inal form bv the end of next week.
Kamin asked what the draft report would consist of. O'Donnell asked the Committee
which important questions and information they would like included in the report.
Shipley said he viewed the report as beinq short, beqinninq with a narrative of the
Committee's purrsose, the Committee's recommendation includinq backqround, with
December 7, 1994
Page 7
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
lenqthv appendices containing the oral and written comments. Shiplev said it should
basicallv be a chronolosv of steps the Committee has taken. OIDonnell agreed with
this format.
Shafir stated that she thought it would be helpful to have a summarv created showing
geoqraphic data, and what comments were qathered from what areas. She also
mentioned the possibility of a chart showins the differinq opinions.
Shipley asked if the Committee needed to meet once more to sign off on the proposed
recommendations. He said he believed this was necessary. After discussion and
checking of schedules, it was decided that the Committee would meet on Friday,
December 16 at 1 1 :30 a.m. at the offices of the Children's Action Alliance, 4001 N.
3rd Street, Suite 160, Phoenix, Arizona.
V. NEXT PHASE OF COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT
Shipley suggested that the Committee agree on a specific date or dates to meet each
month beginning in January in order that these times may be blocked out.
Kamin asked if staff could provide a suideline for what the Committee needs to do
and the time line. She also stated that she would like to review the work that has
alreadv been done prior to the Committee's work, to ascertain exactly which issues
this Committee needs to address and which have already been sufficiently addressed.
She asked that staff help the Committee with determininn what reaulations there
miaht be problems with and which ones would not. Shipley suggested that the first
meetinq in Januarv be identified as an opportunitv for interested parties to qive their
ideas of what regulations are important. Barton felt the Committee micjht actuallv
need to qo throuah all the resulations. He said there might need to be a
subcommittee to do this work.
Nelson stated that prior to this Committee, the Bill was reviewed two years ago. She
said there were things that needed to be changed and were not. She suggested that
this might be a place to start. She said she would hate to see two years of work go
down the drain. Kamin stated that she would still like to see staff suggest an
approach, and she would not like to see two years go down the drain either. Kamin
suqqested that the Committee build on what has alreadv been accomplished.
Even stated that she thought the educational documents also needed to be
summarized so that the Committee could approach both sets of documents. Shafir
said she would like to see both the public and private resulations laid out side bv side
so that problem areas could be determined. Kamin stated that there is a report like
December 7, 1994
Page 8
Child Care Standards Review Committee
Arizona Department of Health Services
that. OIDonnell said such a report was provided at the beqinninq, and it could be
used as a foundation. Shafir commented that some items mav not be in the best
interest of children even if they are acceptable to both the public and private sectors,
and mav therefore need chanqinq.
It was decided that at the December 16th meeting the Committee would give final
approval to the Recommendations, and a sussested approach and draft time frame
for the next seqment of the Committee's Assiqnment would be prepared bv O'Donnell
and DHS staff.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
VII. CALL TO THE PUBLIC
There was no public comment.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Shipley made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Even seconded and the motion was
approved. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Submitted by:
Jayne Brennan, for PRISM, Inc. Consultants
ARIZONA CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
PUBLIC MEETING ON PROPOSED
STAFF-TO-CHILDREN RATIO AND SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CHILD CARE PROGRAMS
December 7, 1994
PUBLIC SIGN - IN SHEET DATA
NAME
Diane Smith Chrisman
Deborah Voegele
Denise Wahlberg
Lois Zimmerman
Shirley Anderson
Trisha Kaorvis
Nancy Kiser
Paulette Zurof
Eleanor West
Pat Brandenberger
Anne Book
Barbara Robey
Irene Jacobs
ORGANIZATION
Greater Phoenix Educational
Management Council
Touchstone Community
Touchstone Community
Washington School District
Arizona House of Representatives
Arizona House of Representatives
Alhambra School District
Phoenix Elementary School District
P.U.H.S. District, Child Development
Teacher
Osborne School District, Cactus Club
Cave Creek School District
Arizona School Board Association
Children's Action Alliance
AGENDA
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COR1IRllTTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16,1994
CHILDREN'S ACTION ALLIANCE
4001 North 3rd Street
Suite 160
Phoenix, AZ. 85012
11:30 A.M.
-
L Call to Order/Declaration of Quorum
IL Approval of Minutes
1. Meeting of December 7,1994
Ill Report of Findings and Recommendations for
Staff-to-Children and Square Footage Requirements
1. Review Final Draft of Report'and Appendices
2. Committee Vote to Approve Report
3. Final Preparation and Distribution of Report
XV. Next Phase of Committee Assignment
1. Defmition of Committee Mandate for
Next Phase:January-June,l995
2. Suggested Approach
3 Committee Activity and Rules Timetable
4. Schedule Meetings and Locations
V. Other Business
PHONE: 255-1272
Action
Action
Discussion
Action
DiscussionlAction
Discussion
Discussion
Discussion/Action
Discussion/Action
Action
VL Call to the Public
VIL Adjournment Action
CHILD CARE STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1994
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Barton, Michael J. Bell, Sue Braga, Steve Broe, Carol
Kamin, Nedda Shafir, Chuck Shipley, Judy Walruff
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Barry M. Aarons, Kevin DeMenna, Brenda Even, Barbara
Nelson
STAFF PRESENT - Implementation Team of SB 1005: Susan Benson, Gary Fortney,
Mary Howard, Marlene Morgan, Catherine Mulligan, Pat Ripley, Lesley Schiraldi, Tony
Zabicki
FACILITATOR: Margaret O'Donnell, PRISM, Inc.
1. CALL TO ORDER 1 DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Co-Chairperson Sue Braga called the meeting to order at 11 :50 a.m. and declared a
quorum.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 7, 1994
Braga called for any discussion of the minutes from December 7. Shipley noted on
Page 3 of the 1217 minutes the statement "five were in favor and six opposed",
however page 4 stated "the motion was approved 11 to 1, with Shipley in
opposition." He asked for consistencv with listinq members opposed or in favor of
motions made by the Committee. O'Donnell stated the minutes would be amended
as requested. Shipley made a motion to approved the December 7, 1994 minutes as
amended. Broe seconded and the motion was approved.
Ill. REPORT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STAFF-TO-CHILDREN
RATIO AND SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS
1. Review final draft report and appendices
O'Donnell stated that she had received comments back from the Committee regarding
the Draft Recommendations for Staff-to-Children Ratio and Square Footage
Requirements, and rather than make changes to the actual document, she listed the
Child Care Standards Review Committee Page 2
December 16, 1994
comments for discussion by the Committee. She said that after the Committee has
a chance to comment today, the Draft could be amended if desired.
OrDonnell stated that the first recommendation was to change the order of items II
and Ill as they appear in the draft. The recommendation was to reverse the order in
which these two issued appeared, placing the Committee Recommendations for Public
and Private Day Care Centers before the Summary of Public Participation and Issues.
Shipley made a motion to dace the Committee Recommendations for Public and
Private Dav Care Centers as ltem II, and the Summarv of Public Particbation and
Issues as ltem Ill in the Draft Recommendations for Staff-to-Children Ratio and Square
Footage Requirements. Walruff seconded and the motion was approved.
OIDonnell said the second suggestion was to include the total number in attendance
at the public meetings. She said this is now in the summary of public participation.
The total number is 85, with 31 making comments, and there is a distribution by
geographic area. Shipley asked about the written comments, and said that he didn't
know why we would need to include the number in attendance. Morgan stated that
if the writtzn comments were included, there might be duplication of people who
commented in writing and were also in attendance. Walruff said duplication could be
an issue, however if people took the time to come, it was important to them. Barton
stated he felt only those who made written or oral comments should be recorded.
OrDonnell stated the third suggestion was to change the wording in the footnote on
Page 11