State of Arizona child care study report

              STATE OF ARIZONA
CHILD CARE STUDY REPORT
Arizona Department of Economic Security
Division of Chiidren and Family Services
Child Care Administration
January, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1993 Child Care Regulatory Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Child Care Advisory Committee Recommendations for Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . .
H.B.2068 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H.B. 2068 Child Care Study Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHILD CARE REGULATIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL OPERATED CHILD CARE . .
Current Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Extent and Nature of Public School Operated Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Applicability of Child Care Center Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
StudyGroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Child Care Advisory Committee Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REGULATION OF FAMILY CHILD CARE HOMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Roles and Responsibilities of State Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
StudyProcess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Findings ...........................................................
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Child Care Advisory Committee Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 1: Executive Order 92-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 3: Child Care Advisory Committee Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 4: ADE Survey. May 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 5: ADE Survey. November 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 6: Letter of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 7: A.A.C., Title 9. Chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 8: Study Group Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 9: Family Child Care Subcommittee Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'\
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
The State of Arizona Child Care Study was required by H.B. 2068. It was to serve as a follow-up to
the 1993 child care regulatory review which was conducted by the Arizona Department of Economic
Security (DES) in response to a requirement of the federal Child Care and Development Block
Grant and Arizona Executive Order 92-14. The current study was conducted under the auspices of
DES, with the cooperation of several State agencies: the Arizona Department of Health Services
(DHS), the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), the Attorney General's Office, and the
Governor's Office for Children; and with the advice of a broad and diverse Child Care Advisory
Committee. It addresses two child care issues: (a) the regulatory status of public school operated
child care programs and (b) the State agency regulation of family child care in Arizona.
Current Situation
In Arizona today, there are multiple agencies involved in the regulation of child care. DHS licenses
child care centers. Child care programs operated by public schools are exempt from licensure,
although privately operated child care programs located in public schools are required to be licensed
by DHS. Although public school operated child care programs are not required to meet State-level
child care standards, they may meet some ADE or local school board requirements by virtue of being
operated by a public school.
The regulation of family child care homes involves multiple State agencies and, as a result, is more
complex and confusing. Providers are required to be certified as "day care group homes" by DHS
if they provide child care in their homes for 5 to 15 children, of whom 5 to 10 are "for
compensation." There are 139 certified day care group home providers in Arizona. Providers caring
for four or fewer children for compensation are not required to be regulated in order to operate
lawfully in Arizona.
If a provider chooses to receive DES child care subsidy payments for eligible children in care, the
provider must be certified, either by DHS as a day care group home or by DES if there are four or
fewer children for compensation. There are 1,550 DES certified family child care providers and an
additional 1,250 non-certified relative providers receiving DES child care subsidy payments in
Arizona.
If a provider chooses to participate in the federal Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP),
administered by ADE, the provider must be certified by DHS or DES or receive "alternate approval"
from a sponsoring agency with whom ADE contracts. There are over 3,300 homes which participate
in the CACFP statewide.
Many homes certified by DHS as day care group homes also receive DES child care subsidy
payments and participate in the CACFP. Theses home are involved with three different State
agencies. In addition, a home may elect to be listed with a child care resource and referral agency
funded by DES. There are no requirements for listing with a child care resource and referral agency,
although the provider must declare that the home is operating lawfully.
Page 2
Studv Process
A study group was convened to address the regulatory status of public school operated child care
programs in Arizona. The group included representatives from a variety of types of public school
operated child care programs from rural and urban areas throughout Arizona, directors of private
child care centers, and members of school board and school administrator associations. The group
met during August 1993 to complete a review of the existing DHS child care center regulations and
to determine the reasonableness and feasibility of applying existing regulations to public school
operated child care settings. The study group's findings were shared with the involved State agencies.
Recommendations were developed and subsequently approved by the DES Child Care Advisory
Committee.
The family child care aspect of the study was conducted utilizing the expertise of the Family Child
Care Subcommittee of the DES Child Care Advisory Committee. The Subcommittee included
members of the DES Child Care Advisory Committee and a diverse group of consumers, providers,
advocates, and State agency staff and met six times from August through November 1993. The
Subcommittee identified the roles and responsibilities of agencies involved in family child care and
identified issues and problems arising from the current family child care regulatory environment.
They identified options for improvement and developed recommendations which were subsequently
approved by the DES Child Care Advisory Committee.
Current Child Care Regulation and Public School Operated Child Care: Findin~sa nd
Recommendations
The task of identifying appropriate regulations, standards, and policies that should apply to the
differing forms of child care offered in the private sector and in the public schools was complicated
by three factors. First, there were definitional issues. Neither statutory nor regulatory language clearly
defined which public school operated programs would be considered to be child care. Second, the
current child care licensing regulations were not written with application to schools in mind. Third,
DHS is in the process of revising existing rules, but the rules are in draft form and were not
appropriate for use in the study.
The study group reviewed all the current DHS regulations and determined that, while some
regulations were reasonable and appropriate for public school operated child care, many more would
need re-interpretation or were simply not feasible for application to public schools. The major
barriers to applying DHS regulations were the governance of public schools, the organizational
structure of public schools, and funding. The experience of the study group strongly suggested that
until these issues were addressed, it would be impossible to move further toward the development
of child care standards for application to all child care programs and impractical to require the
application of existing DHS regulations to public school operated programs.
Following are the recommendations with respect to current child care regulations and public school
operated child care:
1. Statutory and regulatory language needs to be modified to clarify whether or not certain
programs are considered "child care" for purposes of licensure.
Page 3
2. The revision of current child care center regulations needs to be completed and modifications
made to ensure that the regulations are appropriate for specific age groups.
3. The current child care center regulations should not be more broadly applied to any setting
currently exempted, given the current statutory and regulatory issues.
4. All child care programs should have standards that address the health, safety, and well being
of children, including, but not limited to: physical facilities; staffing; activities, toys and
equipment; nutritious food; encouragement of parental participation; and exclusion from the
center of persons whose presence may be detrimental to the welfare of children.
5. All child care programs should be reviewed against a set of standards, and the results should
be available to the general public.
6. Standards for all child care programs should be established within one year after passage of
legislation requiring standards.
7. All child care programs should be in compliance with child care standards within two years
after passage of legislation requiring standards.
8. If public schools are required to meet standards in the future, the State legislature should
make a decision regarding the development of standards. Two options are: (a) a State agency
could take the lead and work with community representatives to develop a single set of
statewide standards, or (b) local school boards could be required to develop their own child
care standards or adopt statewide standards.
9. If all child care programs are required to comply with standards, the State legislature should
decide which organization or agency should review for compliance and be charged with
enforcement. Options include: (a) a State agency or (b) a local entity (e.g., the school board).
Regulation of Familv Child Care Homes: Finding-s and Recommendations
Tle Family Child Care Subcommittee noted the following: (a) The multiple-agency family child care
regulatory system is too complex, inconsistent, confusing, and costly for families, providers, and others
working in the field. (b) Current family child care limits and childlstaff ratios contained in statute and
rules do not allow family child care providers to earn a living wage. (c) There are not enough
identifiable family child care providers in Arizona. (d) Adequate systems are not in place to support
improvement of quality in family child care. (e) DES requires child care resource and referral
agencies to refer to lawful, unregulated homes, and there is no system in place for child care
resource and referral agencies to substantiate that a home is operating lawfully. ( f ) The DES family
child care regulatory and reimbursement systems are not implemented in a manner which is
responsive, user-friendly, consistent, coordinated, or timely, nor is reimbursement to providers
adequate. (g) Zoning ordinances in many localities throughout Arizona serve as a barrier to the
development of family child care.
Page 4
It is, therefore, recommended that changes be made in the regulation of family child care in Arizona,
as specified below:
1. Large Family Child Care Homes - State statute should be changed during the 1994 legislative
session to require certification as a large family child care home for any person providing
care and supervision for seven or more non-residential children from two or more families
unrelated to the provider in the provider's home on a regular basis.
2. Small Family Child Care Homes
2.A. If State statutes were changed to require large family child care certification as described
above in Recommendation #I, this would create a regulatory gap. That is, homes for five
or six children would not be addressed by any statute or rule. It is, therefore, recommended
that State statute be changed in the 1994 legislative session to allow DES to certify homes
caring for six or fewer children and receiving public funds. ADE requirements should then
be modified to allow alternate approval of CACFP participating homes for six or fewer
children. A longer term alternative was strongly supported. That recommendation is
described below in 2.B.
2.B. State statutes should be developed to require small family child care home certification for
any person providing care and supervision for two to six non-residential children from two
or more families unrelated to the provider in the provider's home on a regular basis. By
12/31/94, State agencies involved in child care should ensure that a specific proposal is
developed for the certification of a greater number of small family child care homes. The
proposal should address the issue of how children living with or related to the provider
should be counted in determining the maximum number of children allowed in a certified
home. The proposal should also include provision for the development of rules and should
define responsibility for enforcement.
3. Other Recommendations - It is recommended that there be immediate implementation of
as many of these actions as possible and further study of those for which immediate
implementation is not feasible due to the need for additional information.
3.1. Designate one State agency responsible for certifying small and large family child care home
settings.
3.2. Require that the State agency responsible for certifying family child care settings advise the
applicant within 15 days if the application is incomplete and within 30 days of approval or
nonapproval of certification.
3.3. Engage a broad and diverse group of providers and advocates in a further review of DHS
day care group home regulations to improve clarity and reasonableness of the standards for
family child care settings.
3.4. Allow small family child care homes to operate without local zoning restrictions, and
encourage cities to change ordinances to permit large family child care homes. If permit
charges are imposed, ensure that they are not prohibitively expensive for providers.
Page 5
3.5. Share regulatory information among agencies involved in child care regulation to avoid
duplication and identify problems, until such time as there is a single responsible State
agency.
3.6. Develop a system for sharing training and other resource information among State agencies
in order to enhance the quality of family child care.
3.7. Standardize the currently conflicting fingerprinting statutes across agencies involved in child
care regulation. Explore a review mechanism for extenuating circumstances that might
warrant a waiver of the criminal record prohibition. Make fingerprinting affordable or
provide at no-cost to family child care providers.
3.8. Increase training and education requirements for DES monitoring staff; cross train; involve
staff in quality improvements; promote professionalism and a customer service orientation.
Utilize staff who reflect the cultural and ethnic composition of the community where they
work. Appropriately compensate staff.
3.9. In order to better protect the well-being of children and better serve their families, devise
a mechanism for removing providers from the child care resource and referral agency listings
and for verifying that homes are lawful.
3.10. Provide immediate information on DES family eligibility and changes in eligibility status to
DES contracted family child care providers.
3.11. Provide a toll-free number or other mechanism whereby providers can report payment
processing problems to DES.
3.12. Increase DES subsidy for low income families in order to pay a greater share of the actual
costs of family child care.
3.13. Allow DES to provide State subsidy payments for non-certified relative child care.
3.14. Assist providers with start-up and ongoing costs; assist with liability insurance.
3.15. Provide consumer education.
3.16. Improve access to provider training.
3.17. Encourage and reward providers for accreditation.
3.18. Explore linking limits on the number of children allowed in a home to the education and
experience of the provider.
3.19. Ensure that State family child care regulations are consistent with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and provide related training for providers.
The complete State of Arizona Child Care Study Report (January, 1994) details the processes used
in arriving at findings and recommendations regarding the regulatory status of public school operated
child care programs and the regulation of family child care. Findings and recommendations are
presented. Those who participated in this study represented a diversity of opinions and concerns.
They worked diligently to stay focused on the shared values of child care quality, affordability, and
availability. They took their task very seriously--to make recommendations for improving the Arizona
child care system. All participants are to be commended for their vision, thoughtfulness, and
willingness to work collaboratively for the welfare of Arizona's children and families.
STATE OF ARIZONA
CHILD CARE STUDY
PURPOSE
The State of Arizona Child Care Study was required by H.B. 2068. It was to serve as a follow-up to
the 1993 child care regulatory review which was conducted by the Arizona Department of Economic
Security (DES) in response to a requirement of the federal Child Care and Development Block
Grant and Arizona Executive Order 92-14. The current study was conducted under the auspices of
DES, with the cooperation of several State agencies: the Arizona Department of Health Services
(DHS), the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), the Attorney General's Office, and the
Governor's Office for Children; and with the advice of a broad and diverse Child Care Advisory
Committee. It addresses two child care issues: (a) the regulatory status of public school operated
child care programs and (b) the State agency regulation of family child care in Arizona. This report
explains the events leading up to the study, the process for the study, the findings, and the
recommendations.
BACKGROUND
1993 Child Care Regulatorv Review
The federal Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) required the State to conduct a
regulatory review. DES is the lead State agency for CCDBG. In May 1992, the Governor of the State
of Arizona, the Honorable Fife Symington, signed Executive Order 92-14. The order required DES
to conduct a child care regulatory review in accordance with CCDBG requirements, to include "a
full review of the law applicable to, and the licensing and regulatory requirements and policies of,
each licensing agency that regulates child care services and programs in the state." (A copy of the
Executive Order can be found in Appendix 1.)
The Executive Order also directed DES to convene the following groups:
A Child Care Executive Committee to oversee the child care regulatory review
process and make recommendations for regulatory change, if necessary. The
Committee includes representatives of the following State agencies: Governor's Office
for Children, DES, DHS, and ADE.
An Interagency Working Committee to identify regulatory issues, options, and
impacts and to develop a formal process for identifying issues from all affected
parties. The Committee is composed of representatives from the following State
agencies: DES, DHS, ADE, the Governor's Office for Children, and the Attorney
General's Office.
A Child Care Advisory Committee composed of a representative group of providers,
advocates, and consumers to review regulatory issues, options, impacts, and
recommendations.
In August 1992, DES sent a call for issues to approximately 10,000 child care center and home
providers, consumers, and advocates throughout the state. Utilizing the input provided by
respondents, five major areas were identified for in-depthStudy. The five issues were: (a) regulation
Page 7
of child care programs operated by public schools, (b) limits for child care homes, (c) monitoring of
child care settings, (d) child care provider training, and (e) ratios for child care centers.
The regulatory review included a comparison of existing statutes and regulations applicable to child
care in Arizona and a review of information from national organizations and other states regarding
the five prioritized child care issues. A report of the regulatory review was sent to the Governor and
the State Legislature in January 1993.
Among the findings included in the January 1993 regulatory review report were the following which
are germane to this report:
Public School Operated Child Care
Twenty states license all public school operated child care programs.
Nine additional states license child care programs operated by the public schools for
children younger than school age but exempt programs for school-age children.
Twenty-two states, including Arizona, exempt from licensure all child care programs
operated by the public schools. In Arizona, private child care centers must be
licensed by DHS, but A.R.S.§ 36-884 specifically exempts units of public schools.
Family Child Care
Arizona requires homes for 5 to 10 children for compensation to be certified as day
care group homes by DHS to operate lawfully. The largest number of states consider
homes for 7 to 12 children to be large family child care homes (day care group
homes).
Arizona, unlike most states, has no form of regulation of family child care homes for
four or fewer children for compensation, unless those homes receive public funds.
Persons who provide care and supervision for compensation in their own homes for
four or fewer children are not required to be regulated in order to operate.
If child care homes choose to accept DES funds for any children in their care and
provide care and supervision in their own homes for any part of the day for four or
fewer children, they must be certified by DES (with the exception of specified
relatives who are required only to be fingerprinted and registered). These are called
DES certified family child care homes.
If child care homes choose to participate in the Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP), they must be certified by DES or DHS or must have alternate approval
through the Arizona Department of Education (ADE). Alternate approval reviews
are conducted by ADE-contracted agencies called sponsors.
Page 8
Arizona, unlike most states, does not have age-specific limits for day care group
homes. A single caregiver can care for as many as five children of any age, including
infants. Most states (38) have a provider-to-infant ratio of 1:2-4 in family child care
homes.
At least 25 states, including Arizona, require family child care homes receiving public
funds to be regulated even if homes caring for the same number of children without
public subsidy are not regulated.
Child Care Advisorv Committee Recommendations for Further Studv
At its December 1992 meeting, the Child Care Advisory Committee agreed to focus on two areas
from the January 1993 regulatory review report: (a) public school operated child care and (b) issues
affecting all family child care, both regulated and unregulated family child care. The plan was to
assemble two subcommittees to address these issues. The subcommittees were to be composed of
Advisory Committee members and outside participants knowledgeable about these issues. The
subcommittees tentatively scheduled meetings for early 1993, after the release of the regulatory
review report. However, the Advisory Committee put its plans "on hold" pending the outcome of
legislation addressing both of these issues, as described below.
H.B. 2068
The January 1993 regulatory review report, particularly the public school and family child care issues,
generated considerable interest. During the 1993 legislative session, bills were introduced that would
have simply removed the public school exemption and created a study process for family child care.
Neither of these bills passed as originally introduced. In April 1993, Governor Fife Symington signed
H.B. 2068 which required that DES conduct a follow-up study of rules and regulations applying to
all forms of lawful child care in the state. DES was directed to conduct the review using the
committee structure created by Executive Order 92-14 (i.e., the Child Care Advisory Committee, the
Executive Committee, and the Interagency Working Committee), with the provision that membership
be expanded to include additional providers of public and private child care in urban and rural
communities. The statute allowed for the creation of additional subcommittees, as needed. (A copy
of H.B. 2068 can be found in Appendix 2. A list of the Advisory Committee members is in Appendix
3.)
The study was to identify:
The extent and nature of child care programs offered in the public schools;
The appropriate regulations, standards, and policies that should apply to the differing
forms of child care offered in the private sector and in the public schools; and
The current roles of State agencies in regulating day care group homes and certified
day care homes that receive public funds. (Both CACFP "alternate approval" homes
and DES subsidized homes were considered to be receiving "public funds" for
purposes of this study.)
Page 9
H.B. 2068 Child Care Studv Process
From the time of enactment until July, DES developed the process for the study, working closely
with DHS, ADE, the Governor's Office for Children, and the Attorney General's Office. The Child
Care Advisory Committee reviewed and expressed support for the study process.
With respect to public school operated child care programs, the decision was made to convene a
broadly representative study group to review the existing DHS child care center licensing regulations
and to ascertain their applicability to public school operated programs. Results of the study group's
deliberations would then be reported back to the full Child Care Advisory Committee for
consideration.
A different approach was taken with respect to the family child care issue. A subcommittee of the
Child Care Advisory Committee was formed, as originally planned, with members Erom the
Committee and other participants as well.
The remainder of this report details the processes used in arriving at findings and recommendations
regarding: (a) public school operated child care programs and (b) family child care. Findings and
recommendations are presented. Unless otherwise noted, the recommendations were accepted by
the full subcommittee or committee. This was not an easy process. Given the diversity of opinions
and concerns, participants worked diligently to stay focused on the shared values of child care
quality, affordability, and availability. They took their task very seriously--to make recommendations
for improving the Arizona child care system. All participants are to be commended for their vision,
thoughtfulness, and willingness to work collaboratively for the welfare of Arizona's children and
families.
Page 10
CHILD CARE REGULATIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL OPERATED CHILD
CARE
Current Situation
In Arizona, private child care centers are required to be licensed by DHS. Child care programs
offered on the premises of public schools but operated by organizations other than school districts
are also required to be licensed by DHS. However, A.R.S. $36-884 exempts child care programs
operated by public schools from licensure as child care centers.
ADE does not have specific state-level regulations which apply to child care programs, but facilities
within the schools used for child care still need to meet school facility requirements (e.g., fire safety
standards).
Public school operated programs are under the jurisdiction of their school districts and answer to
their school boards and parents. Policies and procedures for programs in the schools, including child
care programs, are established by school boards, consistent with A.R.S. $15-301 et seq. These child
care programs may establish or adopt guidelines for program operation, but are not required to do
so. There are, therefore, neither easily identifiable nor uniform requirements for public school
operated child care programs.
Extent and Nature of Public School Operated Child Care
H.B. 2068 called for a determination of the extent and nature of child care programs offered in the
public schools. This information was not readily available because public schools are not required
to report on their child care programs.
In 1992, a survey was conducted by the Governor's Office for Children to determine the number of
schools offering school age child care. The study did not specifically address school operated child
care or programs for children younger than school age. It was reported that 245 schools offered
school age child care. Over 60 percent of these used outside agencies and organizations to operate
the program. In 28 percent, the staff was employed by the school district.
Other sources provided additional information which was used to piece together the picture of child
care in the public schools. DES currently contracts with 165 public school operated child care
programs. These programs may also be listed with child care resource and referral agencies andlor
may be participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).
Child care resource and referral agencies have 47 school operated child care programs listed. Of
these, 22 are in Maricopa County (20 beforelafter school programs and two preschool programs).
An additional 21 are in Pima County (one teen parent program and 20 beforelafter school
programs). The remaining four are in the PinallGila Counties area of central Arizona and serve
children beforelafter school. CACFP currently lists six public school operated child care programs
as participants.
Page 11
Despite efforts to utilize available data, it became clear that additional information would be needed
to determine the extent and nature of public school operated child care. As a result, ADE agreed
to conduct a survey of all public schools in the state for the purpose of identifying how many schools
offered programs and what types of programs were available.
In May 1993, ADE sent a mail survey to principals throughout the state. The survey included two
parts: (a) a principal survey which inquired about child care programs implemented in the school
and (b) a program administrator survey for schools operating child care programs which asked for
specific program information. The response was not sufficient to provide a comprehensive picture
of the extent and nature of public school operated child care. Furthermore, some respondents were
unclear about the meaning of terms used in the survey, making the usefulness of the data uncertain.
(See Appendix 4 for a copy of the letter accompanying the survey and the initial results.)
To improve the adequacy of the information obtained from the May survey, ADE conducted a
supplemental survey in November 1993. The follow-up survey focused on public school operated
programs which are currently exempt from child care licensure. It was conducted via phone calls to
school district personnel, rather than individual schools. (See Appendix 5 for results of the November
1993 survey.)
Applicabilitv of Child Care Center Re~ulations
H.B. 2068 required the study "to identify the appropriate regulations, standards, and policies that
should apply to the differing forms of child care offered in the private sector and in the public
schools ..." As the State agencies began to develop the process for the study, it was decided to use
the current DHS regulations as a starting point for discussion. However, there were three factors
which complicated use of the existing regulations. First, there were definitional issues, as described
below. Neither statutory nor regulatory language clearly defined which public school operated
programs would be considered to be child care. Second, the current child care center licensing
regulations were not written with application to schools in mind. As a result, there is a "translation"
problem when trying to evaluate what a regulation would mean in a public school operated
environment. Specific examples can be found in Group B on page 15. Third, DHS is currently
engaged in a review of its child care licensing regulations. Two goals of the DHS review are to better
organize the regulations and to clarify compliance requirements. But these revised regulations are
in the drafting stage and were not appropriate for use in the H.B. 2068 child care study.
The major definitional issues relate to the following:
a Child care licensing statutes define "day care" (child care) and the State education
code defines school, but the distinction between the two is not clearly delineated.
Statute does not define whether child care and school are mutually exclusive or
overlapping. For example, are at-risk education preschool programs "school" or "child
care"?
a Day care is defined in A.R.S. $36-881 as "care, supervision and guidance of a child
or children, unaccompanied by parent, guardian or custodian, on a regular basis, for
periods of less than 24 hours per day, in a place other than the child's or the
children's own home or homes." There is currently no formal definition of
"unaccompanied by a parent, guardian or custodian." As a result, it is not clear
Page 12
whether or not teen parent programs would be required to be licensed. In these
programs, teen parents leave their children in the care of others for some portion of
the day while they are attending classes or engaged in other activities.
A.R.S. $36-884 exempts from child care center licensure programs which provide for
training only in specific subjects, including dancing, drama, music, self-defense, or
religion. DHS has made a determination that recreational programs are not covered
by this exemption. A.R.S. $36-884 also exempts facilities that provide only
recreational or instructional activities to school age children who may come to and
go from the program at their own volition. Without knowing the specifications of
before and after school programs, it is unclear whether they would be covered by
these exemptions. During the study process a related issue of how the DHS
regulations are being applied to parks and recreational programs was identified. Due
to the timeframes and scope of this study, the issue could not be fully explored. (See
Appendix 6 for a letter of concern related to this issue.)
Studv Group
A study group was assembled to address the question of the applicability of the current DHS
regulations to public school operated child care programs. (See Appendix 7 for Arizona
Administrative Code, Title 9, Chapter 5.)
The objectives of the study group were to:
Review current DHS licensing regulations;
Assess the appropriateness of each regulation for ensuring the health, safety, and
well-being of children of various ages in child care;
Determine the applicability of each regulation to public school operated child care
for children of various ages; and
Identify specific issues and concerns related to those regulations if they were to be
applied to public school operated child care.
Forty-eight persons were invited to participate in the study group. The invited group included 35
managers of license exempt child care programs currently operating in public schools throughout the
state. They represented the following program types : (a) before and after school, (b) preschool, (c)
special education preschool, (d) teen parent and infant, and (e) community college programs. Also
invited were a member of the Arizona School Board Association, seven members of the Arizona
School Administrators Executive Board, and five representatives of private for-profit child care
centers.
Of the invitees, 24 participants attended one or more of the study group sessions. The participants
included representatives from a variety of public school operated programs for children of all ages,
school administrator and school board associations, and private child care centers. Both rural and
metropolitan areas were represented. The study group met for three days (August 5,6 and 11,1993)
Pagc 13
at the Arizona State University Downtown Center in Phoenix. Written com ments from participants
were also accepted. (See Appendix 8 for a list of the participants.)
Regulations were divided into three categories for review by the study group:
Center Program and Equipment
Center Licensure, Center Administration, and Center Personnel
Center Activity Areas and Physical Plant Standards
The study group participants reviewed the DHS child care regulations using a facilitated process.
Each regulation was read. Representatives from DHS and the Attorney General's Office were
available to answer questions and clarify the meaning of specific regulations. DHS had been working
on a new, proposed set of child care regulations prior to the meeting of the study group. The new
regulations were in draft form at the time; therefore, the decision was made to use the existing,
approved regulations for purposes of the study group assessment.
After each regulation had been read and clarified, participants were asked if they thought the rule
was reasonable to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of: a) infants and toddlers, b) preschool
age children, or c) school age children. This wording was used because A.R.S. 036-883 requires DHS
to establish "reasonable rules and standards regarding the health, safety and well-being of the
children to be cared for in any day care center." Reasonableness for children was the key concept
during this phase, regardless of setting -- private center or public school operated program. If anyone
present expressed a concern about the reasonableness of a regulation, the concern was recorded. All
concerns were registered; a majority vote was not required.
After addressing the issue of reasonableness, the participants were asked whether they thought the
regulation as written would present a problem if applied to public school programs for: a) infants
and toddlers, b) preschool age children, or c) school age children. As in the case of reasonableness,
if anyone expressed a concern about application to public school operated programs, the concern
was recorded. Written response forms were available to participants unable to attend all of the
sessions. Three were received and included in the results.
Given the definitional issues regarding the child care center regulations described earlier, it was
necessary to make some assumptions in order to proceed with the study. Therefore, regulations were
reviewed as if they might be applied to all the program types represented by study group
participants, including special education preschool programs and teen parent programs.
Furthermore, the review was complicated by the lack of a mandate for regulation of public school
operated programs and lack of consensus on the need. In Ohio, for example, where a coalition
successfully developed standards for school age child care programs operated by public schools and
private centers, a legislative mandate provided the impetus for the endeavor. Schools knew they were
going to be regulated and, therefore, had a stake in the development of appropriate standards.
Private centers saw a need for a revision of current standards and, thus, also had a stake in the
process. State agencies concerned with child care licensing and education both had a stake as well,
because their roles were legislatively defined. None of these facilitating conditions existed in Arizona
at the time the study group was convened.
Page 14
In addition, review of the child care licensing regulations was an enormously complex task due to the
following factors:
There are a large number of regulations. The study group reviewed 541 individual
regulations during the three day period.
The regulations are very complex and detailed. Without research, it was difficult to
assess the feasibility of application of some of the more technical standards. For
example, some participants were not sure if their schools would meet certain of the
architectural specifications.
a nere is great diversity in child care program types. While the study group
represented a broad cross section of program types, not all possible program types
were represented among the participants. From the comments of the participants, it
was apparent that programs of varying types have very different needs (e.g., teen
parent programs v. before and after school care). Current DHS regulations do not
make provision for varying program types.
There are varying concerns related to child age (e.g., infant needs differ considerably
from those of school age children). As a result, it was imperative to evaluate each
regulation for each age group. Most of the current DHS regulations apply without
regard to age group.
School districts in diflerent locations and ok'varying sizes have difrerent capabilities.
DHS regulations as currently written make no distinctions based on location or
facility size.
me review ofregulations had to be conducted without regard to which agency would
enfbrce compliance. The study group did not address which agency might be
authorized to regulate public school operated child care programs. No assumptions
were made about which agency would have regulatory authority.
After the study group completed its evaluation of each of the DHS child care licensing regulations,
assessments were categorized into four major groupings. The four categories are:
Group A: Regulations that are reasonable and would present no unique problems for
public school operated child care programs.
Group B: Regulations that are reasonable but which require clarification in general
and/or would require an expanded interpretation if applied to public school
operated child care programs.
Group C: Regulations that are not reasonable for children of certain ages or for
selected program types.
Group D: Regulations for which there are significant barriers to public school
compliance, including governance, organizational structure, and funds.
Page 15
Following is a further explanation of the four categories and examples of the regulations in each. It
is important to note that categories are not mutually exclusive (e-g., a single regulation may need
clarification as it applies to preschool age children, but may be judged unreasonable for school age
children). But each regulation was placed into only one group for purposes of summary. The
regulation was placed into the "most restrictive" category; that is, if it was assessed to be in both
Group C and Group D, it was placed in Group D. For a listing of each regulation and its designated
category, based on the study group's assessment, see Appendix 7.
Group A: Regulations that are reasonable and would present no unique problems for public school
operated child care programs.
Examples include:
R9-5-501.B. Within each daily program, teacher-caregivers shall select activities in which
children can become individually involved and which meet the children 's developmental age
and needs for: 1. Indoor/outdoor activities; 2. Quiethctive activities; 3. Supem'sed fiee
choiceheacher-directed activities; 4. Individual, small group and large group activities;
5. Smallllarge muscle development activities; and 6. Meals and snacks.
R9-5-301.C. Center personnel shall not release a child to anyone other than the custodial
parent, guardian or a person designated by written authorization ti-om the custodial parent
or guardian except in the case of an emergency when phone authoniation by that parent or
guardian is provided.
R9-5-604.A.2. The center shall provide an unobstructed tiee play area with non-abrasive
carpeting tbr infants to safely and comfortably sit, crawl and play.
There were 181 regulations in this category. They did not, however, constitute a "core" set of
regulations which could be readily adopted and applied. For example, none of the regulations related
to personnel qualifications were included in this category. A "core" set of regulations would need to
fully address essential areas, including personnel.
Group B: Regulations that are reasonable but which require clarification in general and/or would
require an expanded interpretation if applied to public school operated child care programs.
Examples include:
R9-5-505. Field trips.
This group of regulations deals with field trips. R9-5-101.k17. defines field trip as "a planned
excursion or program activity with a specific destination away from the facility." The facility
is the licensed portion of the building. In schools it is likely that only a small section of the
whole school would be licensed. As the rule is written, any excursion to other areas of the
school would constitute a field trip. The intent of this regulation would have to be clarified
and perhaps the language modified to apply in public school settings. It is conceivable that
this issue could be resolved through definition or the development of specific indicators for
public school operated programs.
Page 16
R9-5-308.F. Centers shall require the signature of the parent, guardian, or a person
authorized by the parent or guardian, each time the child enters the center or is released
fiom the center. Centers shall require all persons other than the parent or guardian to
present picture identitlca tion tbr veritica tion in addition to the signs ture prior to releasing
a child tiom the center.
It is typical in school settings for older siblings to pick up their younger brothers or sisters
and escort them home. DHS indicates that this is acceptable if there is a picture of the older
child on file at the center. It is likely that issues with this regulation could be addressed with
a clarification of language.
R9-5-603.G. Rooms in the center used for child care shall be decorated with coverings tbr
windows, mirrors, bulletin boards and age-appropriate pictures orposters at the eye level of
occupant children.
Some areas of schools, such as cafeterias, may not meet this regulation as currently stated.
This is most likely to be true of areas used for multi-age groups at different times of the day.
It is likely that a clarification and/or an indicator of compliance which takes this into account
could address this problem.
There were 105 regulations in this category. DHS has stated that they have proposed clarifications
in their draft regulations for many of the standards which were unclear to the participants.
Group C Regulations that are not reasonable for children of certain ages or for selected program
tYP=
Age. There are a number of regulations which the public and private center study group participants
felt were not reasonable for certain age children, particularly school age children. The concern was
that some regulations written for the well-being of younger children were too restrictive for school
age children who are capable of greater autonomy and are learning self-responsibility.
Examples include:
R9-5-401.A. l'2e center director shall be at least 21 years ofage and appropriately qualified
as specified in the table ot'qualitication standards followng this rule.
Some participants felt that a person 18 years of age or older would be appropriately qualified
to direct programs if all children were school age.
R9-5-306.B. n e center shall maintain a dated class roster in each child care room on a daily
basis which lists the names of all children assigned to that room tor that day, and maintain
the rosters on tile tbr three months.
Some study group participants felt that school age children should be free to change rooms
and that this would not present a safety hazard to them, whether enrolled in a public school
operated program or a private center.
Page 17
Programs. There are at least two public school operated programs which involve child care and
which present unique issues. These are: (a) the teen parent programs in which care is provided
during the day for a parent who is enrolled in school and (b) the child development class in which
students are being prepared for child care responsibilities. Examples of regulations which present
problems for these program types include:
R9-5-502.A.10. Infants shall be separated ti-om older children ...
R9-5-402.E. No one under the age of-16 shall be employed or serve as a volunteer in a child
care center.
This could preclude the teen parent or a child development student from being with the
children.
There are also a number of regulations (e.g., TI3 tests) which apply to all personnel and volunteers.
There were questions raised whether the teen parent or student would be subject to these
requirements.
There were 58 regulations in Group C. In addition, there were standards in Group D which
presented specific problems for selected age groups and program types.
Group D: Regulations for which there are significant barriers to public school compliance, including
funds, governance, and organizational structure.
Governance. Governance was an overarching concern raised by the study group. School boards
currently establish policies for all programs in their districts. Furthermore, some ADE statutes apply
to all school operated programs. Child care regulations impose separate and, in some cases, different
requirements for dealing with the same subject. The study group members expressed concern about
the potential for overlapping and conflicting regulations. Examples include:
R9-5-210.C. 7he Department shall refuse to register a person to work in a child day care
center who is awaiting trial, has been convicted ot' or has admitted committing a felony or
misdemeanor if the Department determines there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the
potential registrant's presence in the center may have a detrimental efyect on the children.
This regulation appears reasonable. The difficulty, however, lies in the source of authority.
Who makes the decisions? The school district, following the personnel policies established
by the board and the ADE fingerprinting statute? Or the child care regulatory agency?
R9-5-302 Each center shall secure and maintain general liability insurance with minim um
limits of $300,000, including coverage tbr any vehicle used tbr transporting children.
R9-5-306 73e center shall maintain ...
Documentation that the child's parents or guardian was notitjed immediately ofaccidents or
injuries to the child which required protessional medical attention, and that an accident
report was sent to the Department within 3 working days.
Page 18
Organizational Structure. During the study group meetings, it was frequently noted that units other
than those charged with administration of the child care program had responsibility for areas
addressed in the regulations. This was particularly true with respect to nursing services, food services,
and transportation. Examples include:
R9-5-511.B. The center shall maintain a one daysupply ofperishables and a three daysupply
of staples to meet emergency situations.
This is an example of a regulation which may be met, but those responsible for the child care
operation have no direct control over these areas. In addition, the school may have additional
or different requirements from other sources related to this same subject.
All of the standards in the transportation section were assigned to Group D. Characteristics
of vehicles and qualifications of drivers are typically outside the jurisdiction of the child care
program manager.
In sum, there were 197 regulations in Group D. This is the "most restrictive" grouping because
clarification and modification of language alone will not remove the barrier. Based on the input
received from the study group, if current regulations in this category were to be applied to public
school operated programs at this time, at least some schools would not be able to comply.
Based on the findings of the study group and in consideration of the issues regarding the current
DHS statutes and regulations, it would not be feasible to simply remove the public school exemption
and apply DHS child care licensing regulations to public school operated programs.
Funds. DHS child care regulations were not written with public school operated programs in mind.
Particularly in the area of physical plant, schools are not currently configured to meet child care
regulations. Modifications would be costly and, according to some study group participants, infeasible
in many cases. Examples of regulations for which funds would present a major barrier include:
R9-5-611 .A.11. All stairways leading to rooms used by children shall be equ$ped with railings
suitable fbr use by children.
R9-5-512.M. Perishable foods in sack lunches shall be stored at proper temperature (45"
maximum) in a refrigerator until mealtime.
Summarv of Maior Findings
1. State statutes regulating child care do not clearly define which programs would have to be
licensed if the public school exemption were removed.
2. DHS regulations were not designed for application to public school operated programs.
3. It would not be feasible to simply remove the public school exemption and apply existing
DHS child care licensing regulations to public school operated programs at this time. A
revision of regulations would be required.
Page 19
4. DHS recognizes the need to reorganize, clarify, add, and delete child care center regulations
and has begun the revision process.
5. There is no mandate at this time for regulation of public school operated child care in
Arizona.
6. While some public school child care programs do meet some local school district
requirements, these requirements may not be unique to child care and are not consistent
across the state.
7. Some of the current DHS child care center regulations would not present a significant
problem if applied to public school operated child care programs; however, these regulations
do not constitute a "core" set of standards which would be sufficient if adopted in their
present form.
8. There are significant barriers to public school child care program compliance with some of
the current DHS child care center regulations.
9. Local school board governance over all school district programs, including child care, is a
major issue influencing discussion of statewide child care center regulations.
Recommendations
1. Statutory and regulatory language needs to be modified to clarify whether or not certain
programs are considered "child care" for purposes of licensure.
2. The revision of current child care center regulations needs to be completed and modifications
made to ensure that the regulations are appropriate for specific age groups.
3. The current child care center regulations should not be more broadly applied to any setting
currently exempted, given the current statutory and regulatory issues.
4. All child care programs should have standards that address the health, safety, and well being
of children, including, but not limited to: physical facilities; staffing; activities, toys and
equipment; nutritious food; encouragement of parental participation; and exclusion from the
center of persons whose presence may be detrimental to the welfare of children.
5. All child care programs should be reviewed against a set of standards, and the results should
be available to the general public.
6. Standards for all child care programs should be established within one year after passage of
legislation requiring standards.
7. All child care programs should be in compliance with child care standards within two years
after passage of legislation requiring standards.
Page 20
8. If public schools are required to meet standards in the future, the State legislature should
make a decision regarding the development of standards. Two options are: (a) a State agency
could take the lead and work with community representatives to develop a single set of
statewide standards, or (b) local school boards could be required to develop their own child
care standards or adopt statewide standards.
9. If all child care programs are required to comply with standards, the State legislature should
decide which organization or agency should review for compliance and be charged with
enforcement. Options include: (a) a State agency or (b) a local entity (e.g., the school
board).DHS should propose options for statutory and regulatory language to clarify whether
or not certain programs are considered "child care" for purposes of licensure.
Child Care Advisorv Committee Response
The DES Child Care Advisory Committee reviewed findings and recommendations. Members
pointed out the difficulty in drawing a distinction between education and child care. The goal is to
provide child care which is developmentally appropriate and enriching to the child; as such, all care
should be educational. However, it may be helpful to distinguish between a program which is
primarily for educational purposes (i.e., a school) and a program which is primarily providing care
for children in the absence of the parent.
There was considerable discussion about the requirements which programs operated by the public
schools must meet. Some emanate from ADE and others are promulgated by the individual school
district. More information about these requirements could potentially be gathered when the extent
and nature of public school operated child care programs is better catalogued. There is agreement,
however, that a single set of statewide standards do not exist for public school operated child care
programs.
With respect to Recommendation #4, it was pointed out that this recommendation was the major
conclusion of the study. Some members felt that the recommendation should go farther and require
that standards address positive development of the child, as well as health, safety, and well being.
With respect to Recommendation #5, it was noted that: (a) the frequency of review should be
specified, and (b) the method of review should be specified. Some members expressed concern that
monitoring of all child care programs should be required. It was further noted that results of any
monitoring currently done by school districts are available for review; it is public information.
However, there may be a need to make the information more accessible or to make its availability
known. The need for a standardized complaint procedure, whereby parents or others can voice
concerns about program operations, was raised.
Concern was voiced that noncompliance with child care standards, other than health and safety,
might result in the discontinuation of some school operated programs which could not be in
compliance with child care standards within two years (Recommendation #7). It was noted that rules
could make provision for grandfathering or other modes of accommodation.
With respect to #8, the comment was made that local school boards might be given the option to
adopt a set of statewide child care standards or to develop a more stringent set of local standards.
In the latter case, the State could establish the minimum level of requirements. At one Advisory
Page 21
Committee meeting, members present indicated a preference for statewide minimum standards, but
further conversation suggested that agreement on the actual standards to be applied would be a
more difficult process.
The Advisory Committee members approved the above recommendations. They were concerned that
there be a State agency with designated leadership responsibility for moving forward toward the
implementation of the recommendations. They did not reach agreement on which agency should
have the lead. They did, however, recommend that the State legislature in the 1994 session create
a broad based task force to develop standards Eor application to all child care centers, including
those operated by public schools, and to establish a mechanism for the enforcement of these
standards, based on and consistent with the recommendations embodied in this report. It was further
recommended that the State legislature make resources available to support the work of the task
force.
Page 22
REGULATION OF FAMILY CHILD CARE HOMES
Current Roles and Resnonsibilities of State Aeencies
Current Situation. Care provided to children by a provider in the provider's home is referred to as
family child care (or family day care). In Arizona, three separate State agencies are involved with
family child care. Providers caring for 5 to 10 children for compensation, up to a total of 15 children,
must be certified by DHS to operate lawfully. These are called day care group homes. Persons who
provide care in their homes for four or fewer children for compensation are not required to be
regulated in order to operate lawfully. However, providers who receive DES funds for the care of
eligible children must be certified by DES as family child care homes. (Relatives are exempt from
DES certification for certain federally-funded programs.) Providers who choose to participate in the
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) must be certified by DHS, DES, or have alternate
approval through ADE. In addition, any lawfully operated home may be listed with child care
resource and referral agencies, funded by DES.
Each agency has its own regulations and attempts to coordinate efforts with the other State agencies
involved in family child care. For example, ADE uses the DES provider-to-child ratios for its
alternate approval homes. But efforts at coordination are challenging. To illustrate this point, DES
recently revised its certification rules to coincide with DHS certification rules. Amending rules is a
long and complex process, often taking many months. DHS has initiated a process of revising the day
care group home regulations in response to valid concerns about the complexity of the standards.
The possibility exists that changes made by DHS may render the DES rules incompatible with DHS
once again. Despite increasing efforts, it remains most difficult to operate a coordinated system when
multiple agencies are involved.
Furthermore, providers and parents who use family child care find the family child care regulatory
systems confusing. For example, a single home may be certified by DHS as a day care group home,
receive funds from DES and meet its requirements, participate in the CACFP, and be listed with a
child care resource and referral agency. Providers who have concerns are often unsure which agency
to contact. Parents who have complaints are often uncertain which agency to call. Once the initial
call is made, there is no clear delineation of which agency takes action. Each agency has its own
complaint procedure. Each procedure is different from the other. It is unclear what and how much
complaint information can be shared among agencies. Furthermore, there is no assurance that
enforcement actions are coordinated. Because of the multiplicity of agencies involved, there is the
potential for duplication of effort or for problems to "fall between the cracks."
Prior to the adoption of day care group home regulations, providers caring for five or more children
in their homes were required to be licensed as a center. The center regulations were judged to be
prohibitive to family child care. When day care group home regulations were adopted, it was
anticipated that thousands of providers would become certified, but this never occurred. It is believed
that the low number of certified day care group homes can be attributed to the statutory limit on
the number of children in care, the stringent regulations which are modeled after center standards
and are still prohibitive to many family home settings, and restrictive local zoning ordinances.
Furthermore, the DHS regulations are difficult to enforce. In Fiscal Year 1992-93, DHS received 228
complaints that a family child care home was operating unlawfully. On a first complaint, DHS sends
Page 23
a letter to individuals allegedly operating unlawfully, informing them of the child care licensing
requirements. Only if a second complaint is received is a home visit made. During Fiscal Year 1992-
93,91 visits were made. The number of homes which continued to operate unlawfully or which were
never reported is unknown.
Enforcement is complicated by the use of the term "for compensation" in the definition of day care
group home. A provider is required to be certified by DHS only if care is provided to 5 to 10
children "for compensation." The provider may care for an additional five children with no
compensation. Therefore, DHS must determine whether or not there is some form of payment for
each child in care. It is not easy to determine whether or not a provider is receiving compensation.
This complex and confusing environment is not limited to those currently in "the system." There are
no good estimates of the number of persons providing child care on a regular basis in their homes;
that is, persons in the business of providing family child care. Based on the experience of other states
and national surveys, however, it is almost unquestionable that the number is large and growing. We
know that as of November 1993, there were 139 DHS certified day care group homes, of which all
but eight were certified for 10 children for compensation. There were approximately 1,550 DES
certified family child care homes and an additional 1,250 non-certified relative providers receiving
public child care subsidy payments. The CACFP had 3,311 participating homes. The CACFP homes
fell into the following categories: (a) alternate approval - 1,940; (b) DES certified - 1,121; (c) DHS
certified - 125; and (d) homes on military installations - 125. In addition, child care resource and
referral agencies list over 1,100 lawful, unregulated homes, and the number has been growing since
the child care resource and referral network became operational statewide in October 1993.
DHS. DHS is responsible for the certification of day care group homes, in accordance with A.R.S.
336-897 et seq. and Arizona Administrative Code, Title 9, Chapter 7. A day care group home is
defined as "a residential facility in which day care is regularly provided for compensation for periods
of less than twenty-four hours per day for not less than five children but not more than ten children
through the age of twelve years." The total number of children present in a day care group home
at any time, including those not for compensation, may not exceed 15.
DHS inspects day care group homes prior to licensure and annually thereafter. On-site monitoring
visits to the homes are required at least two times per year, of which at least one must be
unannounced. Current DHS policy is to make two unannounced on-site monitoring visits each year.
A fire inspection conducted by a state or local fire official is required initially. If a provider prepares
and serves meals, a healthlsanitation inspection is required. This "inspection" takes the form of an
annual self-evaluation.
DES. DES receives funding from several federal programs to provide subsidized child care for
certain parents in need. The DES child care program is funded through the Family Support Act of
1988, the federal At-Risk Child Care Program, the federal Child Care and Development Block
Grant, and the State-funded Child Day Care Subsidy Program.
The federal fund sources allow eligible families to make child care arrangements with several types
of child care providers, including DHS licensed child care centers, license exempt child care centers,
DHS certified day care group homes, DES certified family child care homes and in-home providers,
and non-certified relative providers.
Page 24
All providers are required to sign a registration agreement in order to be reimbursed for caring for
DES eligible children. DES provides technical assistance regarding contractual obligations and
conducts periodic on-site monitoring to ensure that contractual obligations are being met.
DES has the following additional responsibilities for homes providing DES-subsidized child care to
four or fewer children for compensation in a residential setting: (a) recruiting and monitoring DES
family child care home providers, (b) certifying DES family child care home providers and the
dwellings in which care is provided, (c) monitoring DES family child care homes, (d) recertifying
DES family child care homes, and (e) investigating complaints regarding DES family child care
homes.
DES inspects family child care homes prior to certification, conducts quarterly on-site monitoring
visits, and recertifies homes annually, in accordance with Arizona Administrative Code, Title 6,
Chapter 5, Article 52. Fire and healthlsanitation inspections are conducted by DES staff. Homes
which are certified by DHS and which accept DES subsidized children are not monitored for health,
safety, and child well-being by DES because DHS already does so, but, as stated above, providers
are trained by DES staff regarding their DES contractual obligations. DHS homes, like DES certified
homes, are subject to periodic on-site contract compliance reviews.
In addition to certified family child care homes, DES has agreements with non-certified relative
providers. Non-certified relative providers are required only to be operating lawfully, to be registered
with DES, and to be fingerprinted.
ADE CAW. Child care homes that wish to participate in the federally funded CACFP must be
certified by DHS or DES or must have alternate approval through one of ADE's 17 sponsor
agencies. CACFP alternate approval homes are subject to the same rules with regard to provider-child
ratios as DES certified family child care homes.
The CACFP alternate approval process is carried out by sponsoring agencies with which ADE
contracts throughout the state. ADE is required to review one-third of participating sponsoring
agencies annually. The sponsoring agencies conduct annual alternate approval reviews of homes not
certified by DHS or DES. If homes are not DHS or DES certified, they are required to have an
inspection by a county health inspector. A fire safety inspection may be conducted by the sponsoring
agency whose personnel have been trained by fire officials or by the local fire department.
Sponsoring agencies are required by federal regulation to visit all participating homes three times
per year.
Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. Any lawful regulated or unregulated family child care
provider may choose to be listed with a resource and referral agency in Arizona. Child care resource
and referral is a free service for child care providers, parents, and the community. The agencies are
funded by DES through the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant. Child care resource
and referral was established statewide in order to: (a) assist parents in identifying all lawful types of
child care that are responsive to family needs; (b) expand the supply and accessibility of child care
programs; (c) document information about parent demand, provider supply, and services provided;
and (d) provide training and information to parents and providers relating to quality child care.
Specific services to providers include: (a) referrals, (b) access to training, and (c) technical assistance.
Services to parents include: (a) information on choosing quality child care, (b) referrals to child care
providers, and (c) information on resources for families. DES contracts with community based
Page 25
agencies for resource and referral services. A coalition of the Association for Supportive Child Care,
the Arizona Child Care Association--Northern and Southern Chapters, Family Service Agency, and
Flagstaff Catholic Social Service provides services in the following counties: Apache, Coconino, Gila,
Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pinal, and Yavapai. The Tucson Association for Child Care (dba Arizona
Child Care Resources) provides services in the remaining counties: Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, La
Paz, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yuma.
Child care resource and referral agencies do not recommend or endorse any particular child care
setting. To be listed with a child care resource and referral agency, a provider only needs to declare
that the home is operating lawfully in Arizona. Child care resource and referral agencies are not
regulatory agencies and DES does not contract with them to make inspections to determine if
providers are operating lawfully.
Studv Process
DES established a Family Child Care Subcommittee of its standing Child Care Advisory Committee
to study family child care. The Subcommittee is composed of providers (DHS and DES certified and
CACFP "alternate approval" homes), consumers, members of the Advisory Committee, advocates,
and State agency representatives. (See Appendix 9 for a list of Subcommittee members.)
The Subcommittee met six times from August through November 1993 to clarify issues, identify
problems, and make recommendations about the regulation of family child care in Arizona. The
primary focus was on State agency roles in regulation and the impact of regulation on quality,
affordability, and availability of family child care.
Findings
The Subcommittee enumerated many issues related to family child care in Arizona, based on the
diverse experiences and backgrounds of members. Needs for additional information were identified
and information was shared among Subcommittee members. The initial, lengthy list of issues was
distilled into seven major problems which are as follows:
1. The multiple-agency family child care regulatory system is too complex, inconsistent,
confusing, and costly for families, providers, and others working in the field. There are three
State agencies involved in family child care and each has its own set of regulations. DHS has
nearly 400 regulations which day care group homes must meet. DES has a separate set of
regulations for DES certified family child care homes. ADE utilizes DES ratios, federal
CACFP requirements, as well as State statutes, to review its alternate approval homes.
(Duplication and conflicting requirements among the State agencies were identified in the
1993 regulatory review.) The Subcommittee reviewed the current regulations and regulatory
processes. They agreed that more reasonable and straightforward regulations and more "user-friendly"
processes would stimulate growth in the number of family child care settings and
retention of qualified providers. Providers currently operating "underground" would be
encouraged to come forward, be regulated, and share in the benefits of providing lawful care.
Page 26
2. Current family child care limits and child/staE ratios contained in statute and rules do not
allow family child care providers to earn a living wage. One of the major concerns voiced by
respondents to the DES Call for Issues, conducted as part of the 1993 regulatory review, was
the requirement for DHS day care group home certification for providers caring for 5 to 10
children for compensation. Most states do not require regulation as a group (or large) family
child care home unless a provider is caring for seven children. The prevailing sentiment was
that providers caring for six or fewer children should not be required to meet the many,
complex day care group home standards for a small group of children. (Of the 139 DHS
certified day care group homes in Arizona, only eight are certified for fewer than the
maximum of 10 children for compensation, or 15 total children. Of these eight, only three
which are certified for five children would be affected by this change.) The costs, they
reported, were prohibitive and discouraged potential providers, especially providers who
wished to make this their career. It has been estimated that a DHS certified provider with
six children in care earns only $5,600 per year, because a second caregiver is required.
Whereas, an unregulated home with six children (four children for compensation and two of
the provider's own children) can earn approximately $10,400 per year. This has had an
adverse impact on availability of care.
3. There are not enough identifiable family child care providers in Arizona. The number of
children, particularly younger children, in family child care settings is large and growing.
Nationally there is a shortage of family child care, especially for infants and toddlers. Because
there is no requirement in Arizona for registration or regulation of family child care homes
caring for four or fewer children, it is unknown how many family child care homes there are
in the state, but parents and referral agencies agree--there are not enough to meet the
demand. In fact, child care resource and referral agencies have recently reported shortages,
most notably in infant care, throughout Arizona.
The Subcommittee identified barriers which keep potential providers away from child care,
particularly regulated care. Barriers include: low wages, complex regulations, lack of
incentives, and lack of information. These factors also contribute to the high turnover rate
of providers.
4. Adequate systems are not in place to support improvement of quality in family child care.
The se~cesth at are available are not comprehensive, well-coordinated, and consistent.
Quality care requires well-trained, caring providers and systems which reward and support
quality improvement. Unregulated child care providers have limited access to training. Unless
their presence is known to a regulatory agency or a resource and referral agency, there is no
easy way to make them aware of training opportunities and to encourage participation in
career development activities. Support is also an important aspect of quality child care. The
work of the child care provider is often stressful and demanding. There are few systems in
place now which provide professional and peer support to providers who most typically work
alone--they do not have someone to turn to for "moral support" or for help with problem-solving.
Page 27
5. DES requires child care resource and referral agencies to refer to lawful, unregulated homes,
and there is no system in place to substantiate that a home is operating lawfully. A.R.S. 541 -
1967 requires that child care resource and referral agencies make referrals to all types of
lawful child care settings, including those which are unregulated. As of October 1993, there
were 1,107 lawful, unregulated providers listed with the child care resource and referral
agencies. Lawful, unregulated homes represent 42 percent of the 2,659 family child care
homes listed with these agencies. Although parents who call for a referral are told that there
is no inspection or monitoring of homes on the referral network, the agencies report that
parents often have the expectation that a home has met some requirements. That is not true
of those homes which are lawful but unregulated. Furthermore, because the agencies have
no resources or authority to check homes, they have to assume that an unregulated provider
is operating lawfully based on information given by the provider. There is currently no
mechanism in place for child care resource and referral agencies to ensure the accuracy of
information provided.
6. The DES family child care regulatory and reimbursement systems are not implemented in
a manner which is responsive, user-friendly, consistent, coordinated, or timely, nor is
reimbursement to providers adequate. Concerns were expressed that the current DES subsidy
rates for child care are too low. In addition, a need was expressed for provider support
systems which are consistent throughout the state. For example, providers commented on the
length of time it takes to get information regarding the eligibility of families. It was also
noted that staff should better reflect the cultural make-up of the communities they serve and
should be better trained.
Zoning ordinances in many localities throughout Arizona serve as a barrier to the
development of family child care. Many zoning ordinances in Arizona were written before
the proliferation of family child care and the regulation of day care group homes. As a result,
family child care homes are viewed and treated variously from community to community.
How family child care homes are categorized has a significant impact on the restrictions
which apply. Some localities forbid day care group homes; some require a use fee of as much
as $1,500, which is prohibitive for family child care providers. As a result, it has been
estimated that over 60 percent of DHS certified homes are out of compliance with local
zoning ordinances. Efforts have been underway on a city-by-city basis to allow small family
child care homes "by right" and day care group homes either "by right" or through a non-discretionary
use permit, with affordable permit and business license fees, if imposed.
Recommendations
After reaching agreement on the problem statements, the Family Child Care Subcommittee
identified options to address the problems described above and prioritized the options for discussion.
While all options were eventually evaluated, the Subcommittee ranked the following as the primary
issues for discussion: (a) the number of children lawfully allowed in family child care settings, (b) the
need for a coherent family child care certification process under the auspices of one State agency,
and (c) some degree of regulation for a greater number of family child care settings.
The Subcommittee struggled with the issue of counting children living with or related to the provider
in the total--whether some or all should be counted and whether children should be counted only
if they are under a certain age. The issue requires consideration of many complex questions about
Page 28
quality, affordability, and availability of child care, as well as family choice. The recommendations
in this report represent the agreement of the Subcommittee as of its last meeting. But there is not
consensus that this issue has been fully resolved. As a result, the Subcommittee recommended and
the DES Child Care Advisory Committee agreed that this issue needs further discussion, in
accordance with Recommendation #2.B. below.
Following are the recommendations which emanated from the Subcommittee's deliberations.
1. Large Family Child Care Homes
State statute should be changed during the 1994 legislative session to require certification as
a large family child care home for any person providing care and supervision for seven or
more non-residential children from two or more families unrelated to the provider in the
provider's home on a regular basis.
Definitions
Non-residential children are those who do not normally live with the provider.
Children are defined as ages birth up to the 13th birthday.
Relatives include persons in any of the following relationships to the child whether
by marriage, blood, or adoption: parent, grandparent, great grandparent, brother,
sister, stepparent, stepbrother, stepsister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, niece, nephew, or
legal guardian.
Regular means more than one day per week for five or more consecutive weeks.
Requirements
1.1. The provider could care for a maximum of 14 total children in the home. The
provider's own or residential children younger than nine years of age would be
counted in the total.
1.2. Two providers would have to be present when there are seven or more children in
the home. The provider's own or residential children younger than nine years of age
would be counted for purposes of ratios.
1.3. A third provider would have to be present when there are 9-12 infants in the home.
The maximum number of infants allowed would be 12. Infant is defined as any child
who is 12 months of age or younger, or who is under 18 months of age and not yet
walking.
1.4. All providers and household members would have to be checked with Child
Protective Services, at no cost to the provider, prior to and periodically during the
period of certification to ensure that there had been no substantiated child abuse
incidents. (There is no system currently in place to implement this recommendation.)
Page 29
1.5. A provider would have to meet all additional DHS day care group home regulations.
Small Family Child Care Homes
2.A. If State statutes were changed to require large family child care certification as
described above in Recommendation #I, this would create a regulatory gap. That is,
homes for five or six children would not be addressed by any statute or rule. This
would present a problem for both DES and ADE. It is, therefore, recommended that
State statute be changed in the 1994 legislative session to allow DES to certify homes
caring for six or fewer children and receiving public funds. The legislation should
permit DES to amend administrative rules to immediately conform with the change
in statute. ADE requirements should then be modified to allow alternate approval
of CACFP participating homes for six or fewer children. A longer term alternative
was strongly supported. That recommendation is described below in 2.B.
2.B. State statutes should be developed to require small family child care home
certification for any person providing care and supervision for two to six non-residential
children from two or more families unrelated to the provider in the
provider's home on a regular basis. By 12/31/94, State agencies involved in child care
should ensure that a specific proposal is developed for the certification of a greater
number of small family child care homes. The proposal should address the issue of
how children living with or related to the provider should be counted in determining
the maximum number of children allowed in a certified home. The proposal should
also include provision for the development of rules and should define responsibility
for enforcement. DES and ADE should address how homes exempt from either large
or small family child care certification could be certified to receive public funds for
children in child care.
Definitions
Non-residential children are those who do not normally live with the provider.
Children are defined as ages birth up to the 13th birthday.
Relatives include persons in any of the following relationships to the child whether
by marriage, blood, or adoption: parent, grandparent, great grandparent, brother,
sister, stepparent, stepbrother, stepsister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, niece, nephew, or
legal guardian.
Regular means more than one day per week for five or more consecutive weeks.
Requirements
2.1. The provider's own or residential children younger than nine years of age would be
counted for purposes of ratios. (Some Subcommittee members preferred exempting
some or all of the provider's own or residential children younger than nine years of
age.)
Page 30
2.2. All providers would have to be fingerprinted. (Some members supported
fingerprinting for all adult household members.)
2.3. All providers and household members would have to be checked with Child
Protective Services, at no cost to the provider, prior to and periodically during the
period of certification to ensure that there had been no substantiated child abuse
incidents. (There is no system currently in place to implement this recommendation.)
2.4. All providers would have to have current first aid and health and safety training; CPR
training would have to be completed within the first year of certification. (There was
not complete agreement on the CPR training requirement.)
2.5. The provider would have to complete a health and safety self-assessment checklist.
2.6. All providers would be required to be 18 years of age or older.
2.7. An orientation provided by the regulating agency in a convenient location would be
required prior to initial certification; three hours of additional training would be
required per year thereafter.
2.8. The provider could care for a maximum of four infants, excluding sibling groups.
Infant is defined as any child who is 12 months of age or younger, or who is under
18 months of age and not yet walking.
2.9. There would be a periodic on-site monitoring visit.
2.10. Recertification would be required every three years. (Some Subcommittee members
preferred every year.)
3. Other Recommendations
The following recommendations address one or more of the problems identified by the
Subcommittee and enumerated in the Findings section of this report. Some are proposed
solutions to specific problems; others are broader approaches to systems improvement. The
Subcommittee supported immediate implementation of as many of these recommendations
as possible and further study of those for which immediate implementation is not feasible due
to the need for additional information.
3.1. Designate one State agency responsible for certifying small and large family child care home
settings.
3.2. Require that the State agency responsible for certifying family child care settings advise the
applicant within 15 days if the application is incomplete and within 30 days of approval or
nonapproval of certification.
3.3. Engage a broad and diverse group of providers and advocates in a further review of DHS
day care group home regulations to improve clarity and reasonableness of the standards for
family child care settings.
Page 31
Allow small family child care homes to operate without local zoning restrictions, and
encourage cities to change ordinances to permit large family child care homes. If permit
charges are imposed, ensure that they are not prohibitively expensive for providers.
Share regulatory information among agencies involved in child care regulation to avoid
duplication and identify problems, until such time as there is a single responsible State
agency.
Develop a system for sharing training and other resource information among State agencies
in order to enhance the quality of family child care.
Standardize the currently conflicting fingerprinting statutes across agencies involved in child
care regulation. Explore a review mechanism for extenuating circumstances that might
warrant a waiver of the criminal record prohibition. Make fingerprinting affordable or
provide at no-cost to family child care providers.
Increase training and education requirements for DES monitoring staff; cross train; involve
staff in quality improvements; promote professionalism and a customer service orientation.
Utilize staff who reflect the cultural and ethnic composition of the community where they
work. Appropriately compensate staff.
In order to better protect the well-being of children and better serve their families, devise
a mechanism for removing providers from the child care resource and referral agency listings
and for verifying that homes are lawful.
Provide immediate information on DES family eligibility and changes in eligibility status to
DES contracted family child care providers.
Provide a toll-free number or other mechanism whereby providers can report payment
processing problems to DES.
Increase DES subsidy for low income families in order to pay a greater share of the actual
costs of family child care.
Allow DES to provide State subsidy payments for non-certified relative child care.
Assist providers with start-up and ongoing costs; assist with liability insurance.
Provide consumer education.
Improve access to provider training.
Encourage and reward providers for accreditation.
Explore linking limits on the number of children allowed in a home to the education and
experience of the provider.
Page 32
3.19. Ensure that State family child care regulations are consistent with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and provide related training for providers.
Child Care Advisorv Committee Response
The Child Care Advisory Committee approved the above recommendations. They commended the
Family Child Care Subcommittee and staff for reaching consensus on many difficult issues related
to the improvement of family child care in Arizona.
Concern was expressed that attention be given, during the period of further study called for in the
recommendations, to any potential unintended effects of small family child care regulation. The study
should also estimate the potential impact of small family child care regulation on the availability of
child care in the state. Furthermore, there was concern that there be sufficient enforcement features
to ensure that providers comply with any family child care regulatory statutes enacted consistent with
these recommendations.
It was further recommended that a broad and diverse group of interested parties be brought together
to develop standards for family child care homes, both small and large, consistent with
Recommendation #3.3. A concern was expressed that standards for the health, safety, and well being
of Arizona's children not be decreased in this process and that further study be given to the issue
of how to determine total children in care for purposes of regulation.
In order to make the regulation of family child care homes a success, it was recommended that an
extensive public awareness campaign be undertaken and that incentives for participation be explored.
APPENDIX 1
EXECUTIVE ORDER 92-1 4
Page 33
EXECUTIVE ORDER 92-14
(~eplaceEs xecutive Order 92-13)
STATE OF ARIZONA CHILD CARE REGULATORY REVIEW
Designating the Department of Economic Security as the State Agency
responsible for conducting the Child Care Regulatory Review.
WHEREAS, the availability of affordable quality child care is essential for
Arizona's families and the development of young children; and
WHEREAS, the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990
was enacted to increase the availability, affordability, and quality of child care; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Economic Security has been designated as the
lead state agency to administer the Child Care and Development Block Grant; and
WHEREAS, the Child Care and Development Block Grant requires the State
to "complete a full review of the law applicable to, and the licensing and regulatory
recluirelnents and policies of, each licensing agency that regulates child care services
and programs in the State."
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Fife Symington, Governor of the State of Arizona, do
hereby designate the following responsibilities:
1. The Department of Economic Security shall convene and chair a Child
Care Executive Committee to ensure interagency coordination and
implementation of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
requirements, oversee the Child Care Regulatory Review process and,
make recommendations for regulatory changes if necessary.
2. The Child Care Executive Committee shall include representatives
from the Governor's Office For Children, the Department of Economic
Security and the Department of Health Services. The Department of
Economic Security shall invite a representative from the Arizona
Department of Education to participate in the Child Care Executive
Committee.
3. The Department of Economic Security shall conduct a Child Care
Regulatory Review to examine regulations affecting all forms of lawful
child care and determine the effect of regulations, or lack
thereof, on the quality, affordability, and availability of child care in
Arizona.
4. The Department of Economic Security shall convene and chair an
Interagency Working Committee to identify regulatory issues, options,
and impacts. The Interagency Working Committee shall develop a
formal process for identifying issues from all affected parties, including
but not limited to providers, advocates, and consumers.
5. The Interagency Working Conlmittee shall include representatives
from Department of Economic Security, Department of Health Services
and Governor's Office for Children. The Department of Economic
Security shall invite representatives from Arizona Department of
Education and Arizona Attorney General's Office to participate in the
Interagency Working Committee.
EXECUTIVE OIZDER 92-14
PAGE TWO
6. The Department of Economic Security shall review regulatory issues,
options, impacts and recommendations with an Advisory Committee
comprised of a representative group of providers, advocates and
consumers.
7. The Department of Economic Security shall complete the Child Care
Regulatory Review by January 31, 1993 and submit a report with
recommendations, including proposed statutory changes, to the
Governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction, President of Senate,
and Speaker of the House.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand and caused to be affixed on the Great Seal of
the State of Arizona.
,.P, g-3 GOVERNOR
DONE at the Capitol in Phoenix this eighteenth
dayofMay in the Year of Our Lord One
Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-two and of
the Independence of the United States of America
the Two Hundred and Sixteenth.
ATTEST:
Secretary of State
APPENDIX 2
H.B. 2068
Page 34
Senate Engrossed House Bill
FILED
State of Arlzona
House of Representatives
Forty-first Legislature
First Regular Session
1993
HOUSE BILL 2068
AH ACT
ESTABLISHING A DES CHILD CARE STUDY.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Study of child care reaulations
A. The department of economic security shall conduct a follow-up
study of rules and regulations applying to a11 forms of lawful child care
in this state utilizing the conmittee structure presently in place
pursuant to executive order 92-14 to perform this study, except that the
membership may be changed so thzt the providers of public and private care
in urban and rural coimuni ties are ackq2t:ely represented, and additional
subcornittees nay be created as needed.
B. The study shall identify the ~ppropriate regulations, standards,
and policies that should apply to the differing forms o f chi!d care
offered in the private sector and in the public schools as well as the
extent and the nature of the programs offered in the public schools.
C. The study shall identify the current roles of state agencies in
regulating day care group homes and certified day care homes that receive
public funds.
D. On or before January 1, 1994, the department shall issue a
report based on the findings of this study, including such draft
legislation as may be necessary to iriiplement the findings, to the
governor, the president of the senate, and the speaker of the house of
representatives.
Sec. 2. Delayed repeal
This act expires from and after July 1, 1994.
APPENDIX 3
CHILD CARE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page 35
CHILD CARE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NAME AND ADDRESS
1. Gary Clarke, Committee Chair
President and C.E.O., YMCA
350 N. 1st Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85003
2. Deborah Brewer
6908 W. Cherryhill Dr.
Peoria, AZ 85345
3. Jean Donaldson
Executive Board & Governing Board
Washington School District
71 6 W. Moon Valley Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85023
4. Anna Marie Grana-Miller
Motorola, Inc.
Government Electronics Group
8201 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Drop HI 102
Scottsdale, AZ 85252
5. Mary Hartley
AZ School Board Assoc.
41 18 W. San Juan
Phoenix, AZ 85019
6. Carol Kamin, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Children's Action Alliance
4001 N. 3rd St., Suite 160
Phoenix, AZ 8501 2
7. John Lewis, Executive Director
Intertribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
4205 N. 7th Ave., Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85013
8. Nadine Mathis
SUMMA Associates, Inc.
735 E. Guadalupe
Tempe, AZ 85283
9. Barbara Nelson
Arizona Child Care Association
4945 Via Entrada, Suite 104
Tucson, AZ 85718
10. Janet Regner
Executive Director
Arizona Community Action Association
181 8 So. 16th St.
Phoenix, AZ 85034-5304
11. Jesse Rodriguez
NACOG - Flagstaff
Headstart Division Chief
119 E. Aspen Ave.
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
12. Martha Rothman
Executive Director
Tucson Association for Child Care, Inc.
1030 North Alvernon Way
Tucson, AZ 85711
13. Anita Scarpati
1523 W. Colter, #15
Phoenix, AZ 8501 5
14. Chuck Shipley
AZ Chamber of Commerce
1221 E. Osborn
Phoenix, AZ 8501 2
15. Judy Walruff, ACSW
Coordinator, Adolescent Pregnancy Program
Flinn Foundation
3300 N. Central
Phoenix, AZ 8501 2
16. Ginger Ward
Executive Director
Southwest Human Development
202 E. Earl, Suite 140
Phoenix, AZ 8501 2
17. Susan Wilkins
Executive Director
Association for Supportive Child Care
4701 S. Lakeshore Dr., #I
Tempe, AZ 85282
APPENDIX 4
ADE SURVEY
MAY 1993
Page 36
.Arizona
Department of Education
I C. DIAKE BISHOP
Superintendent
Dear Principal:
House Bill 2068, recently enacted by the Arizona Legislature, requires the Department of Economic Security
C to conduct a follow-up study of rules and regulations applying to all forms of lawful child care currently in
operation. As part of this study, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) must assess the extent and the
nature of the child care programs offered in the public schools.
Ln order to fulNl this requirement, the ADE Research and Development Division has been asked to collect
information about all the child care programs operated by public schools across the state. The resulting School-
Based Child Care Study requests specific information about all Qpes of child care programs currently in
operation in your school.
Tfie School-Based Child Core Srdy is divided into two sunfeys. The Principal Survey, which uks about child I care program being implemented in your school, should be completed by you. The Program Adminisrrrvor
Survey asks for specific information about these programs, so it should be completed by the administrator of
each of these program. A separate Program Adminisrraor Sutvey should be completed for each child care
program administered.
Your assistance in completing and returning rhis questionnaire is requested. The completed survey forms ( should be returned in the attached self-addressed, stamped envelope no later than June 4, 1993, to:
Research and Development
Arizona Department of Education
1535 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85007
I Phone (602) 542-5031 or Fax (602) 542-3077
If you have any questions regarding this survey or child care programs in general, please contact Gary Fortney
in the ADE Support Services Unit at 542-3052. Thank you for your continued cooperation and support. I
1 C. fiiane Bishop Superintendent of Public IPrmction ,
1535 \Vest Jefferson, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
SCHOOLBASED CHILD CARE STUDY
Principal Sur~ey
House Bill 2068 requires the Department of Economic Security to conduct a follow-up study of rules and
regulations applying to all forms of lawful child care in operation in Arizona. As part of this study, the
Arizona Department of Education (ADE) must assess the extent and the nature of the child care programs
offered in public schools. In an effort to provide the most accurate and correct information to the Legislature,
your cooperation is requested in responding to the following questionnaire.
The School-Based Child Care Study is divided into hbo surveys. The Principal Survey ash about child care
programs currently implemented in your school, and should be completed by the school principal. The
Program Adminisrator Survey asks for specific information about these programs and should be completed by
the program administrator for each program. A separate Program Administrator Survey should be completed
for each child care program administered.
Please answer the follo~ingq uestions
School
District
Principal's Name
Contact Phone Number
Does your school provide any of the following child care programs? (check all that apply)
Full-Day Kindergarten O BeforeIAfter School Child Care
0 Half-Day Kindergarten 0 Specid Education Preschool
0 Head Start O Preschool (other than the above)
At-Risk Preschool 0 Other Child Care Programs (please speci@)
Chapter One
Teenage Parenting Child Care 0 No Child Care Progams are provided
Cl Hero Program Child Care
If you have checked any of the child care program above, pleae duplicate the Program Administrators Survey I and distribute one copy to the administ-ator of each of the program checked. Please collezt and return dl
copies of the questionnaires in the stamped, self-addressed envelopes provided, no later than June 4, 1993, to:
Research and DeveIopment
Arizona Department of Education
1535 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone (602) 542-5031 or Fax (602) 542-3077
If your school does not provide any of these or similar types of child w e services, please return your 1 questionnaire in the self-addressed envelope by June 4, 1993.
u Thank you for your assistance.
SCHOOLBASED CHILD CARE SrtTDY
Program Administrator Survey
House Bill 2068 requires the Deparunent of Economic Security to conduct a follow-up.study of rules and
regulations applying to all forms of lawful child care in operation in Arizona. As part of this study, the
Arizona Department of Education (ADE) must assess the extent and the nature of the child care programs
offered in the schools. In an effort to provide the most accurate and correct information to the
Legislature, your cooperation is requested in responding to the following questionnaire.
lie Program Administramor Surwy asks.for specific information about each of the child care programs
operated by your school. A sepamte survey form should be complefedfor each child careprogram and
returned no Ialer than June 4, 1993, to:
Research and Development
Arizona Department of Education
1535 ?V. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone (602) 542-5031 or Fax (602) 542-5031
If you have any further questions, please contact Gary Fortney of the ADE School Support Unit at 542-3052.
Thank you for your assistance.
Please answer the following questions
Program Administrator's Name
School
District
Contact Phone Number
1. What type of child care programs do you administer? (choose only one)
Q Full-Day Kindergarten 0 Hero Program Child Care
0 Hal f-Day Kindergarten 0 BeforeIAfter School Child Care
0 Head Start - Q Special Education Preschool
Cl At-Risk Preschool Cl Preschool (other than the above)
0 ' Chapter One Other Child Care Programs @lease specify)
Cl Teenage Parenting Child Care
2. How many years has this program been in operation?
3. How is this program operated?
0 School employs program personnel during the hours that the program is in operation
0 School contracts with other public or private agencies to operate this program (please specify)
0 Employer-sponsored (please specify)
0 Other (please specify)
4. Is the program licensed/certified?
a Yes a No
If yes, by whom?
5. Is your program accredited?
a Yes a No
If yes, by whom?
6. How is this program funded? (check all that apply)
a Parents pay a fee per child enrolled.
0 School district provides all funds.
District provides facilities and parents pay a fee.
O DES subsidizes children.
Cl DES contract
Cl United Way
Other (please specify)
7. What is the approximate weekly fee for this program?
8. What was the approximate number of children in each age group enrolled in this program on May 1,
1993?
Infants (under one year of age)
One-year-olds
Two-year-olds
Three-year-olds
Four-year-olds
Five-year-olds (not in school)
Kindergarten
Grades 1-3
Grades 4-6
Grades 7-8
Other
(describe)
9. What days of the week is this program in operation? (check all that apply)
0 Monday El Friday
a Tuesday Saturday
0 Wednesday Sunday
II] Thursday
10. What are the hours of operation for this program?
11. Does this program provide child care for any of the following special circumstances? (check all that
apply)
0 Holidays 0 Special Needs E 0 Drop-in 0 School Vacation
Summer Vacation 0 EveningINight (after 6:00 p.m.)
O Sick Child Care
C 12. What meals are provided as part of this program? (check all that apply)
O BreaWast
AM Snack
0 Dinner
0 Evenin-g Snack
Cl Lunch 0 None
0 PM Snack
1 13. If meals are provided as part of this program, who provides them? (check d l that apply)
D Child and Adult Care Food Program
R Parents
0 National School Lunch Program
I 0 Other (please specify)
14. Is transportation provided free of charge to children as part of this program?
0 Yes O No
il If yes, by whom?
I 15. Is transportation provided to students in this program, but not as a part of this program?
a Yes 0 No
If yes, by whom?
I Please return the completed survey forms no later than June 4, 1993, to:
Research and Development
Arizona Department of Education
1535 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Phone (602) 5425031 or Fax to (602) 5423077
SCHOOL BASED CHILD CARE STUDY
Preliminary Results
Arizona Department of Education
Research and Development Division
September 3,1993
PRIXCIPALS SURVEY
Number of Principals Responding 59 1
Number of Districts Responding 183
Elementary School Principals Responding 427
Middle School Principals Responding 8 7
High School Principals Responding 80
Unknown 2
Schools Reporting the Existence of Programs
by Type
Percentage
Number of Respondents
Full-Day Kindergarten 123 20.8%
Half-Day Kindergarten 213 36.0%
Head Start 46 7.8%
At-Risk Preschool 52 8.8%
Chapter One 168 28.4 %
Teenage Parenting Child Care 17 2.9 %
Hero Program Child Care 11 1.9 %
BeforelAfter School Child Care 190 32.2%
Special Education Preschool 112 19.0%
Preschool (other than the above) 70 11.8%
Other Child Care Programs* 54 9.1%
None 170 28.8%
* Other Child Care Programs include:
After School by Golden Gate Community, After School Clubs, After School tutoring (3), Child
Development classes, City operates beforelafter school, Employee Child Care, Enrichment classes,
Extended Day Program (ll), Kidco - through Parks and Recreation, Licensed Child Care by ADHS,
National School Lunch, One hour after school for K-3, Other licensed after school program, Parenting
classes offered at times, Parks and Recreation (2), Play school lab with child development classes, Pre
1st grade multiage, YMCA (7), Special Education through Pima County, Sunnyside Up Program,
Touchstone After School, Even Start, Wrap Around Head Start
Note: Numbers in ( ) are the number of times mentioned.
School Based Chid Carc Study Prclirniiary Results September 3,1993
Research and Development, Arizona Department of Education Page 1
SCHOOL BASED CHILD CARE STUDY
Preliminary Results
Arizona Department of Education
Research and Development Division
September 3,1993
PROGRAhl ADhmmRATOR SURVEY RESPONSES
Number of Administrators Responding 300
Head Start
At-Risk Preschool
Chapter One
Teenage Parenting Child Care
Hero Program Child Care
BeforeIAfter School Child Care
Special Education Preschool
i ieschool (other than the above)
Other Child Care Programs*
Blank
Number of Programs
by Type
5
* Other Child Care Programs include:
Extended Day Kindergarten
Pay School Lab with child development class
Fall Day Care
Life ManagementIChild Care
Even Start
Preschool Child Care
Early Release for children of working parents
Jump Start
Community School
Infant through 5 years
Preschool Special Education Head Start
Chapter 1 Extended Kindergarten Day
Child Development Clasi
After School Recreation
Child Care to support Adult Education
Licensed Facility
Private Grant
Child Development Preschml
School Based Child Can Study P r c f i a r y Resultr September 3, 1993
Research and Devclopmcnt, Arizona Department of Education Page '2
Infants (under one year of age)
One-year-olds
Two-year-olds
Three-year-olds
Four-year-olds
Five-year-olds (not in school)
Kindergarten
Grades 1-3
Grades 4-6
Grades 7-8
Other
Total
Students Served Students Served
by Age by Age
(Excluding Chapter 1)
Is the program licensedlcertified?
Nurn ber Percent
Yes 103 37.7 96
No 170 62.3 46
No Response 27
The program is licensedlcertified by ...
Arizona Department of Economic Security
Arizona Department of Education
Arizona Department of Health Services
'State of Arizona'
Chapter 1
Developmental Preschool Idea
District
Public School
Certified Teachers
North Central Association
Head Start
NAEY C
Tucson Community Schools
City of Phoenix
Is the program accredited?
Number Percent
Yes 44 17.3 96
No 21 1 82.8%
No Response 45
School Based Chid Care Study Prclim'inary Results Scptcmber 3,1993
Research and Dcvclopmcnt, Arizona Dcpartmcnt of Education Page 3
The program is accredited by ...
Arizona Department of Economic Security
Arizona Department of Education
NAEY C
North Central Association
CDAlMohave Community College
'State of Arimna'
District
Arizona Center for Vocational Education Cooperatives
Chapler 1
Preschool Grant
How is the program operated?
231 School employs personnel during the hours that the program is in operation
28 School contracts with other public or private agencies to operate this program*
8 Employer-sponsored
50 Other
11 No Response
* Private agencies include:
Rim Guidance
Non profit program for district
City of Phoenix Head Start
In conjunction with a local preschool for handicapped preschool program
Sunrise Preschool
New Horizons of Lake Havasu City
Federal Government - Chapter 1
Head Start
County
Southwzst Human Development
Unspecified
How many years has this program been in operation?
Average 4.5 years
Minimum 1 month
Maximum 30 years
School Based Child Care Study Preliminary Rcsultr Scptcmba 3,1993
Resuvch and Development, Arizona Department of Education Page 4
Average years in operation by type of program
Head Start
At-Risk Preschool
Chapter One
Teenage Parenting Child Care
HERO Program Child Care
BefordAfter School Child Care
Special Education Preschool
Preschool (other than the above)
Other Child Care Programs
How in the program funded?
97 Parents pay a fee per child enrolled
105 The school district provides all funds
95 District provided facilities and parents pay a fee
72 DES subsidizes children
25 DEScontract
3 United Way
106 Other
Note: Programs could be funded from more than one source. Therefore, the total number of programs funded
exceeds the number of programs reported by respondents.
\$'hat is the approximate hourly fee for this program?
District reporting a fee 139
Average $1.45 per hour
Minimum $0.06 per hour
Maximum $6.25 per hour
Does this program proride child care for any of the following spesial circumstances?
Number
Holidays 3 1
Drop-in 36
Summer Vacation 72
Sick Child Care 11
Special Needs 65
School Vacation 37
EveningMight (after 6:00 p.m.) 8
Pe€cent8
of Respondents
10.3 %
12.0%
24.0 96
3.7 46
21.7 96
12.3 46
2.7 %
* Respondents were allowed to select more than one response. As a result the percentages may total more than
100 percent.
School Based Child Can Study Prclim'mary Rcsultr September 3,1993
Rcsuuch and Devcloprncnt, Arizona Department of Education Page 5
\mat meals are provided as part of this program?
Breakfast
AM Snack
Lunch
PM Snack
Dinner
Evening Snack
None
No Response
h'um ber
102
129
116
155
2
4
38
2 1
Percent*
of Respondents
34.0 %
43.0%
38.7 %
51.7%
0.7 %
1.3%
12.7 %
* Respondents were allowed to select more than one response. As a result the percentages may total more than
100 percent.
If rneaIs are provided as part of this program, who provides them?
Percent*
Number of Respondents
Child and Adult Care Food Program 26 8.7%
Parents 66 22.0 %
National School Lunch Program 111 37.0%
Other 76 25.3 %
* Respondents were allowed to select more than one response. As a result the percentages may total more than
100 percent.
Is transportation provided free of charge to children as part of this program?
Number Percent
Yes 150 53.2%
No 132 46.8%
No Response 18
Is transportation provided to students in this programs, but not as a part of this program?
Number Percent
Yes 67 28.9 %
No 165 71.1%
No Response 69
School Based Child Can Study hliminary Results September 3, 1993
Research md Devclopmcnt, Arizona Department of Education Page 6
SCHOOL BASED CHILD CARE STL?)Y
Preliminary Results
Arizona Department of Education
Research and Development Division
September 20, 1993
SELECTED PROGRAMS
Number of Programs
Teenage Parenting Child Care 20
Hero Program Child Care 11
BefonlAftcr School Child Cart 79 .
Preschool (other than above) 46
Number of Students Serred by Age
Lnfants (under one year of age)
One-year-olds
Two-year-olds
Three-year-olds
Four-year-olds
Five-year-olds (not in school)
Kindergarten
Grades 1-3
Grades 4-6
Grades 7-8
Other
Total
Teenage Parenting
Child Care
Hero Program
Child Care
Wore/After School Preschool
Child Care (other than above)
Is the program licensedlcertifid?
Teenage Parenting Hero Program BeforelAfter School Preschool
As Child Care Child Care Childcare (otherthanabove)
11 4 19 2
No 8 6 55 30
No Response 1 1 4 4
School Based Child Cart Study Prtlirninry Rctults Scptcmbcr 20,1993
Rcsurch and Dcvclopmcnt, Arizona DcpNncnt of Education Page 7
The program is IicenWcertified by ...
Teenage Parenting Hem Program BefordAfter School Preschool
Child Care Child Care Child Care (other than above)
Arizona Department of
Economic Security
Arizona Department of
Education
Arizona Department of
Health Services
North Central Association
Head Start
Tucson Community Schools
'State of Arizona"
District
Certified Teachers
NAEYC
How is the program operated?
Teenage Parenting Hero Program BeforeIAfter School Preschool
Child Care Child Care Child Care (other than above)
School employs personnel during
the hours that the program is in
operation 15
School contracts with other public
or private agencies to operate this
program 4
Other 3 3 12 8
School Based Child Can Study Preliminary Results Scptcmbcr 20,1993
Research and Dcvclopmcnt, Arizona Dcpatmcnt of Education Page 8
How is the program funded?
Teenage Pamting
Child Care
Parents pay a fee per child enrolled
The school district provides all h d s
District provided facilities and
p m t s pay a fee
DES subsidizes children
DES Contract
United Way
Other
No Response
Hen, Program
Child Care
BeforelAfter School Preschool
Child Care (other than above)
U'hat is the approximate hourly fee for Lhis program?
Teenage Parenting Hero Program BeforelAfter School Preschool
Child Care Child Care Child Care (other than aboce)
District reporting a fee
Average
bl inimum
Maximum
School Based Child Carc Study Preliminary Results September 20, 1993
Resuuch and Dcvelopmcnt, Arizona Dcpmcnt of Education Page 9
APPENDIX 5
ADE SURVEY
NOVEMBER 1993
Page 37
School Based Child Care Phone Survey Results
Arizona's 216 operating school districts were contacted by phone between November 8 and November 24.
Survey forms were completed for 21 1 districts. The five districts which did not respond account for three
percent of the states total enrollment in grades K-12. The following information represents the results obtained
from the 2 1 1 responding school districts.
The following results represent the best effort to obtain complete information about school based child care
programs operated by Arizona public school districts. Since public schools are not obligated to report this
information to the Arizona Department of Education, ADE recognizes that the accuracy of the information is
heavily dependent on the respondent. The findings of this study can not be used as a complete and thorough
census of programs. At best, they can be used to get a general idea of the number and type of child care
programs offered in the public schools, above and beyond those mandated or licensed by the state.
Programs which are funded by some form of special grants or part of the mandated instructional program have
been excluded from the results reported below. These specially-funded or mandated instructional programs
include: 27 school districts operating At-Risk Preschool programs, 12 districts operating Teenage Parenting
Programs, 9 districts operating Hero programs and 147 districts operating Special Education Preschool
programs.
Survey Results
Does your district have any child care programs operated by school district personnel which are not part of
your regular instructional program, either on campus or at facilities leased or loaned to the district?
Yes 48 22.75%
No 163 77.25%
For those districts indicating that they operate a child care program, the following information was collected.
Six districts indicated that they operate more than one type of school based child care pro,o ram.
Type of Program
At-Risk Preschool
Child Care for Teenage
Parenting Programs
Child Care for Hero
Programs
BeforeIAfter School Child
Care*
Special Education
Preschool
Other Child Care
Does your district
operate any of the
following child
care programs?
How many children are served in the following age
groups?
Yes
3
1.42%
9
4.27%
2
0.95%
3 1
14.69%
4
1.90%
7
No
208
98.58%
202
95.73 %
209
99.05%
180
85.31 %
207
98.10%
204
Total
45
151
25
5,449
108
School Age
0
0
0
4,501
0
0-2 Years
0
138
0
2
0
3-5 Years
45
13
25
946
108
APPENDIX 6
LETTER OF CONCERN
Page 38
A r i z o n a P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n
September 29, 1993
Mr. Bruce Liggett
Program Administrator
Child Care Administration
P.O. Box 6123, Site Code 801-A
Phoenix. AZ 85075
A s s o c i a t i o n , lnc.
3124 E. Roosevelt
Phoenix, AZ 85008
Dear Mr. Liggett:
I am writing you representing the 45 municipal park and recreation departments that are members of the
Arizona Parks and Recreation Association. These agencies, from across the state, offer a variety of
recreational services to Arizona's residents and visitors.
As indicated in our previous conversation, it is my feeling that the licensure of recreational programs as
child care services needs to be addressed by the study committee(s) created by executive order 92-14
and House Bill 2068. It is the position of the Association that such licensure is a misinterpretation of the
regulations; this misunderstanding has caused the termination of some recreational services. It is our
belief that public recreational programs should be included in the exemption clause of the current
standards (36-884).
While the safety of the child is of upmost concern to all recreation departments, the child care regulations
which now govern some services are inappropriate for a municipal recreation department. Our concerns
are as follows:
the regulations create yet another layer of bureaucracy which slows the efficient delivery of services.
Currently, a recreational program is governed by the regulations of its loca! community. Several
layers of elected/ appointed officials and the general public review recreational services;
the "adequate physical facilities" clause (36-883) is often times inappropriate for a public community
center. To physically retrofit a public building, where these recreational programs are offered, would
be cost prohibitive! These are not unsafe buildings merely buildings constructed for a wider public
use;
the "child care personnel registration" clause (36-883.02) most times is irrelevant because it is not-.
timely. By the time the results of the fingerprinting are received, a recreational progrdm has already
concluded. This provision adds nothing to a child's safety only an additional cost and administrative
- hurdle. ~epartments already conduct extensive character checks on potential employees;
affiliated with NATIONAL RECREATION and PARKS ASSOCIATION
Arizona
Bruce Liggett
September 29,
Page Two
Parks & Re
o c i a t i o n , I
3124 E. Roosevelt
Phoenix, AZ 85008
(602) 267-7246
c r e a t i o n
nc.
the definition of "day care" (36-881.2) is so broad that any child service would be included. It is
inconceivable that the original intent was the inclusion of public recreation services;
branches of public government ( i.e. recreation departments) are conspicuously absent in the
definition of "person" operating day care centers (36-881.6). This causes me to believe that they
- w;re not i~tendedfa r inclr~chn:
the mandate to license recreational programs has been inconsistently applied. It appears that the
need for licensure is an arbitrary decision based upon the interpretation of the local licensing staff
person. What must be licensed in one part of the state is ignored in another;
the definition of "compensation"( R9-5-101, paragraph 13) is unclear. Does the receipt of tax
revenues, foundation support, andlor corporate support really constitute " compensation" to a local
recreation department? It is upon this questionable interpretation that a recreation department's
program then becomes subjected to the licensure process (36-881, paragraph 3);
the regulations, while seemingly written to protect pre-school children, when applied to a recrecation
department most heavily impacts services to school age children.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to working with the Department of Health
Services and the State Legislature to resolve these concerns.
Sincerely,
gw + Roger Hacker
Executive Director
cc: file
Governor Symington
Senator Greene
Representative Killian
affiliated with NATIONAL RECREATION and PARKS ASSOCIATION
APPENDIX 7
A.A.C., TITLE 9, CH