State of Arizona child care regulatory review

              STATE OF ARIZONA
CHILD CARE REGULATORY REVIEW
Prepared for the
Arizona Department of Economic Security
Division of Children and Family Services
Child Care Administration
as Required by the
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990
and
State of Arizona Executive Order 92-1 4
January, 1993
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
1717 W. Jefferson P.O. Box 6123 Phoenix, AZ 85005
Fife Symington Charles E. Cowan
Governor JAN 2 I; $"'"
, ,JJ Director
The Honorable Mark Killian
Speaker of the House
Arizona House of Representatives
State Capitol, House Wing
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear Speaker Killian:
The State of Arizona Child Care Regulatory Review Report was developed to comply with
federal requirements and is submitted as required by Executive Order.
The federal Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act of 1990 requires the
State to "complete 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 in the
State." Executive Order 92-14 designated the Department of Economic Security as the
state agency responsible for conducting the Child Care Regulatory Review.
A Child Care Executive Committee and Interagency Working Committee were established
to ensure coordination of the CCDBG. The committees examined current child care
regulations, identified specific regulatory issues, and guided research on major policy
issues. The Child Care Regulatory Review report describes the regulatory review process
and provides a comparison of child care statutes and regulations, and provides information
on five major issues including limits for day care homes, monitoring, regulation of child
care programs by public schools, ratios for child care centers and provider training.
A Child Care Advisory Committee was established to advise the department on the
CCDBG and regulatory review process, The committee will continue to provide ongsireg
assistance in planning and implementation of the CCDBG.
The Executive and Interagency Committees recommend that the five nlajcsr psiicy Issues
continue to be examined. The complexity of the issues Involved requires further research.
No proposed statutory changes have been identified at this time. An action plm will be
developed for each major issue to ensure progress in improving the state's child cat:
regulations.
Please contact me at 542-5678 or Penny Ladell Willrich, Assistant Dimtor, Division of
Children & Family Services, at 542-3598, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
CEC: BL: ke
Enclosure
EXECUTIVE ORDER 92-14
( ~ e ~ l a cEexse cutive 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
requirements and policies of, each licensing agency that regulates child care services
and programs in ihe 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 representalives
from the Governor's Office For Children, the Department of Econoil~ic
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
Arlzona.
4. The Department oi Economic Security shall convene and chair an
Interagency Working Committee to identify regulatory issues, options,
and impacts. The Interagency Working Committee sl.lall develop a
torrnal process for identifying issues from all affected parties, including
but not limited to providers, advocates, and consumers.
5. The I~~teragencWy orking Committee shall include representatives
from Department of Economic Security, Department of Health Services
and Governor's Office for Children. The Department of Econornic
Security shall invite representatives from Arizona Department of
Education and Arizona Attorney General's Office lo participate in the
Interagency Working Committee.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 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 Chiid 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.
i4 6'-%
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
rhe Two Hundred and Sixteenth.
Prepared by
B.J. Tatro and Amy Belon
B.J. Tatro Consulting
3420 E. Shea Boulevard, Suite 199
Phoenix, Arizona 85028
602-494-9848
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Background
The Call for lssues
Comparison of Child Care Statutes and Regulations in Arizona
Prioritized Child Care lssues
Issue: Limits for Day Care Homes
Issue: Monitoring
Issue: Provider Training for Day Care Homes and Centers
Issue: Ratios for Child Care Centers
Issue: Regulation of Child Care Programs Operated by Public Schools
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 1 1.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Summary of Call for Issues
Regulatory Requirements for Family (Small) Day Care
Homes
Regulatory Requirements for Group (Large) Day Care
Homes
Regulatory Requirements for Day Care Homes by
Number of Children Allowed in the Home
Number of Children Under Age Two Per Day Care Home
Provider
Provider's Own Children in the Day Care Home
Summary of Child Care Center Personnel Qualifications
Child Care Center Personnel Qualifications
Day Care Home Provider Qualifications
Continuing Education Requirements
Massachusetts - Qualifications for Teachers
Delaware - Career Development System Model
Sample Differentiated Staffing Structure for Educational
Personnel with Suggested Educational Qualifications
State Ratio Requirements
Group Size Requirements
NAEYC Recommended Staff-Child Ratios Within Group
Size
Regulation of Public School Operated Child Care
Programs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Child Care and Development Block Grant and Arizona Executive Order 92-14 require Arizona to
complete a full review of the law applicable to and the licensing and regulatory requirements of agencies
which regulate child care in the state.
The required regulatory review was conducted June-December 1992 and included: a Call for Issues from
child care providers, users of child care services and other interested parties; 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 five prioriiized child care issues.
The prioriiized issues were selected based on input from three sources: the Call for Issues, the Interagency
Working Committee (composed of representativesfrom agencies involved in child care regulation) and an
Advisory Committee (composed of a representative group of providers, advocates and consumers). The
issues selected for review and a brief summary of findings follow:
Limits for Day Care Homes. Arizona, unlike most states, has no form of regulation of day care homes for
four or fewer children for compensation, unless those homes receive public funds. Arizona requires homes
for five to ten children for compensation to be certified as day care group homes, whereas the largest
number of states consider homes for seven to twelve children to be large (group) day care homes. Large
homes typically have more stringent methods of regulation (e.g., licensing compared to registration) and
standards which go bey 2nd those required for smaller family day care homes.
Arizona, unlike most states, does not have age-specific limits for day care group homes. Two providers are
required for six children, but all five under the care of a single provider can be any age, including infants.
Most states (38) have a provider to infant ratio in day care homes of 1 :2-4.
Most states (41) count some or all of the provider's own children when calculating the maximum number
of children in the day care home. Ariiona's approach is rather unique; providers may have an additional
five of their own children in the day care group home, raising the maximum in care from ten to fifteen
children, with the addition of another caretaker.
At least 25 states, including Arizona, have requirements that day care homes receiving public funds be
regulated even if homes caring for the same number of children without public subsidy are not.
Arizona, unlike many states (at least 21), does not allow day care home providers to exceed the stated
maximum to care for additional school age children before and after school.
The experiences of some states which license, register and certity day care homes are described. Policy
options regarding the regulation of day care homes in Arizona are presented.
Monitoring. In Ariiona, unlike most states (37), responsibility for regulation and subsidy of child care
programs is in two separate state agencies - the Arizona Department of Economic Security is responsible
for subsidy and the Arizona Department of Health Services is responsible for regulation. Like 32 other
states, the Child and Adult Care Food Program is administered by the Department of Education in Arizona.
For family day care homes, most states, including Arizona, do not require a separate fire or healthlsanitation
inspection (except for alternate approval homes participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program).
For day care group homes and centers, most states, like Arizona, do require fire and healthlsanitation
inspections.
Indicator systems are described as a potentially successful approach to increasing consistency in the
application of child care standards in both day care homes and centers. The trend in family day care
homes seems to be toward using only one inspector who looks at all aspects of the setting.
Policy options regarding the monitoring of day care homes and centers in Arizona are presented.
Provider Training. Arizona, like most states, has preservice education and experience requirements for
center directors and teachers, but Arizona does not have requirements (beyond high school) for assistant
teachers, teacher aides or day care home providers. Like many states, Arizona requires orientation, first
aid and CPR training for day care group home providers, as well as a specific number of hours of annual
training. Many states require center personnel to have first aid and CPR training; Arizona requires only one
person with such training on the premises. Arizona requires 12 hours of annual training for center
personnel; half of the states require 5-19 hours per year.
Like most states, Arizona does not have a comprehensive, well-established early childhood training or
career development system. Examples are given of states which have adopted training and career
development systems. Policy options related to provider training are presented.
Ratios for Child Care Centers. It is most difficult to compare Arizona's staff to child ratios to those of other
states due to the differences in age groupings, definitions and situational exceptions. The review includes
a chart showing the ratios for each state for ages 6 months, 1 year, 1 112 years, 2 years, 2 112 years, for
each year between 3-14 and mixed groups.
Arizona is in the minority of states which do not have group size standards for centers. The review includes
a chart showing the group size requirements for each of the 32 states having group size standards.
The experiences of some states which have recently changed or are proposing changes in ratios or group
size are described .
Regulation uf Child Care Programs Operated By Public Schools. Twenty states license public school
operated child care programs. Nine more 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.
The experiences of some states who handle regulation of public school operated child care programs in
various ways are presented. Policy options regarding the regulation of public school operated child care
programs in Arizona are presented.
tt is very difficult to make comparisons among states on any issue, particularty using secondary data
sources, because there are significant differences in definitions and assumptions are not always clearly
described.
Given the challenges of trying to compare Arizona with other states on the selected policy issues, the
authors believe that the picture presented in this document is accurate; however, the specific situation of
any one state could have changed since the date were collected, or could be subject to a different
interpretation. Any reference to another state for purposes other than this regulatory review should be
confirmed with that state.
BACKGROUND
The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) requires that the State "complete 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 unless that State has reviewed such law,
requirements and policies ..." during the three year period prior to November 5, 1990, the effective date of
the Act. The review was to have been completed by January 1993, although this has now been extended
to February 1993.
The Governor of the State of Arizona, the Honorable Fife Symington, signed Executive Order 92-14 on May
18, 1992. The order directed that the Ariiona Department of Economic Security (ADES) conduct a child
care regulatory review to examine regulations affecting all forms of lawful child care.' The order included
the following responsibilities relevant to this regulatory review:
ADES shall convene and chair a Child Care Executive Committee to oversee the child care
regulatory review process and make recomrr~endationfso r regulatory change if necessary.
The Child Care Executive Committee shall include representatives of the Governor's Office
for Children, ADES, the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) and the Arizona
Department of Education (ADE).
ADES shall convene and chair an Interagency Working Committee to identify regulatory
issues, options and impacts. The lnteragency Working Committee shall develop a formal
process for identifying issues from all affected parties, including providers, advocates and
consumers. The lnteragency Working Committee shall include representativesfrom ADES,
ADHS, ADE, the Governor's Office for Children and the Attorney General's Office.
ADES shall convene an Advisory Committee composed of a representative group of
providers, advocates and consumers to review regulatory issues, options, impacts and
recommendations.
In response to a Request for Proposal issued by ADES, a contract was awarded to B.J. Tatro Consulting
to conduct the mandated regulatory review.
The regulatory review included the following components:
A Call for Issues from child care providers, users of child care services and other interested
parties;
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 five
prioritized child care issues: limits for day care homes, monitoring, provider training, ratios
for child care centers and regulation of public school operated child care programs.
' Lawful child care in Ariiona includes the following: in-home child care for four or fewer children (for
compensation, plus children related to the provider not for compensation), day care group homes caring
for f i e to ten children through the age of twelve (for compensation, plus as many as five children related
to the provider not for compensation) certified by the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) and
child care centers. Homes receiving subsidy through the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES)
must be certified by ADES. Day care homes and centers participating in the Child and Adult Care Food
Program must be licensed by ADHS, be certified by ADES or ADHS, or receive alternate approval through
the Arizona Department of Education.
THE CALL FOR ISSUES
In August 1992, a Call for lssues was sent to approximately 10,000 names on lists which included child care
providers, users of child care services and other interested parties. The Call for lssues was not designed
to be a survey of concerns; rather, it was designed to elicit a wide range of issues which might be used
to set prioriiies for the regulatory review.
The Call for lssues response form posed the following questions:
What needs to be changed about the regulation of care in Arizona?
What specifically do you believe should be done? (Propose a resolution.)
If this change were made, how would it affect the availability, affordability or quality of child
care? (Describe the impact.)
Responses were tabulated to determine who had the concern (i.e., whether the respondent was a provider,
user and/or an interested party) and where they were located (i.e., county). Responses were categorized
by the type of setting to which they applied (i.e., day care home, child care center, both or unknown).
lssues were further categorized into subject area (e.g., training, program, facility) and then grouped into
one of three areas: operations issues, regulatory issues or policy issues. Operations issues included topics
relating to contractual matters or interactions among providers and agency personnel. These issues did
not relate to matters of regulation or potential regulation. Regulatory issues included comments related to
existing requirements and proposed changes to these. Regulatory modifications requiring a change in an
existing statute were not included in this category. Policy issues included all comments about or proposed
changes to state statute and other matters of broad policy related to the regulation of child care.
Table 1 presents a summary of the responses to the Call for Issues. The largest number of respondents
designated themselves as providers, followed by interested oarties and users. Many respondents fit into
more than one of these categories. The majority of the responses came from Maricopa and Pima Counties,
although responses came from all counties except Greenlee and La Paz. Comments related almost equally
to day care homes and child care centers and were nearly evenly split between regulatory issues and
policy issues. The major categories of responses were: day care home limits, general comments about child
care in Arizona, provider training, regulation of public school operated child care programs, payment,
monitoring, administration and center ratios.
Table 1.
SUMMARY OF CALL FOR ISSUES
Source of Data: Arizona Department of Economic Security, Call for Issues, 1992.
Total Responses 566
Respondents (duplicated count) 695
Providers
Users
Interested Party
Unknown
County of Respondent (unduplicated count) 566
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
La Paz
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
Unknown
Setting To Which Issue Applies (unduplicated 980
count)
Centers
Homes
All Settings
Unknown
Issue (unduplicated count) 980
Operations
Regulatory
Policy
TABLE 1. (continued)
SUMMARY OF CALL FOR ISSUES
Category of the Issue (unduplicated count) 980
Administration
Consumer/Community Education
Churches
Communication
Employer
Equipment
F aciliy
Firelsafety
Funding
General
Limits
Monitoring
Payment
Preschools
Process
Program
Public Schools
Ratios
Recreation
Salaries
Sanitation
Special Needs
Tax
Training
Zoning
The results of the Call for Issues were tabulated, analyzed and presented to the Interagency Working
Committee and the Advisory Committee. The decision was made to select issues for the regulatory review
from the categories of regulatory issues and policy issues only. Operations issues were communicated to
the individual agencies involved (i.e., ADES, ADHS and ADE) for their review and action, if necessary.
Based on the Call for Issues, five policy issues were selected for the regulatory review:
Limits for day care homes,
Monitoring,
e Provider training,
Ratios for child care centers, and
Regulation of public school operated child care programs.
COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE STATUTES AND REGUL4TIONS
IN ARIZONA
The following sources were reviewed:
Arizona Revised Statutes, Chapter 7.1, Child Day Care Programs, Article 1. Day Care
Centers (ARS 36-881 et seq.) and Article 4. Day Care Group Homes (ARS 36-897 et seq.).
Ariiona Administrative Code, Tile 9, Chapter 5, Department of Health Services, Child Care
Facilities (R9-5), Article 1, Articles 2-6 (Centers) and Articles 7-1 0 (Day Care Group Homes).
Arizona Administrative Code, Tile 6, Chapter 5, Social Services (R6-5), Article 52 (Day Care
Certification and Supervision) and related Arizona Department of Economic Securiiy
instructions (DES-5-52). The Arizona Department of Economic Securiiy child care provider
contract was also reviewed.
The United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service regulations for the
Child and Adult Care Food Program (7 CFR 226).
Zoning ordinances were not reviewed, because a review of the impact of zoning ordinances on family day
care had recently been conducted by the Children's Action Alliance.
The statutes and regulations were compared and major areas of difference were identified. Gaps (that is,
subjects covered in one source but not addressed in another) were also identified. Major differences and
gaps are set forth in the Comparison of Child Care Statutes and Regulations in Arizona, which is available
from the Arizona Department of Economic Security, Child Care Administration. The existence of a difference
or gap does not suggest that the variation is inappropriate. One would expect to find differences in
regulations for small in-home child care and child care centers. The variations are highlighted so that those
reviewing regulations can easily discern where and how regulations differ from setting to setting. Findings
are discussed in the section of this report entitled MONITORING.
Both ADES and ADHS have completed or are currently in the process of completing new draft regulations
which address some of the identified differences or gaps. ADES has issued policy directives reconciling
any differences with ADHS until such time as the draft regulations become effective.
PRIORITIZED CHILD CARE ISSUES
After the issues were identified, members of the lnteragency Working Committee identified contacts at the
national level and in selected states. The purpose of the contacts was to gather information on what other
states were doing with respect to each of the prioritized issues. Contacts included the following
organizations:
National Association of Regulatory Administrators
Children's Defense Fund
Center for Career Development in Early Care and Education/Wheelock College
WorkIFamily Directions
National Association for the Education of Young Children
National Association for Family Day Care
The Children's Foundation
National Child Care Association
Child Care America
United States Department of Health and Human Services
National School Age Child Care Alliance
In addition, a variety of researchers and state officials were contacted based on leads provided by the
above mentioned organizations, the lnteragency Working Committee and the Advisory Committee.
A telephone survey of licensing agencies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia was conducted to
gather information not available from secondary sources.
In accordance with the conditions of the contract with ADES, secondary sources of data were to be used
(as opposed to reviewing regulations from all states). Sources of data are given for each table throughout
the report. Where there was more than one source of the same information, sources were compared and
reconciled through reference to the actual state regulations (which were available for 50 of the 51
jurisdictions reviewed). In some cases, discrepancies could not be reconciled and, in these cases, what
appeared to be the most recent source of information was used.
It is very difficult to make comparisons among the states. Differing definitions present a major barrier to
comparisons among states. For example, a home with the same number of children may be considered
a family day care home in one state and a group or large day care home in another. There is considerable
variation in the definition of regulatory terms, as well. What is considered to be licensing in one state may
be called certification in another.
The ever-changing regulatory environment also makes it very difficult to get an accurate picture of the "state
of the states" on any particular child care issue. Even very recent data such as the 1992 Family Day Care
Licensing Study published by the Children's Foundation in August 1992 is already out-of-date for several
states, according to its authors and the contacts made during this regulatory review.
Given the challenges of trying to compare Arizona with other states on the selected policy issues, the
authors believe that the picture presented in this document is accurate; however, the specific situation of
any one state could have changed since the data were collected, or could be subject to a different
interpretation Any reference to another state for purposes other than this regulatory review should be
confirmed with that state.
In the ensuing sections devoted to each issue, the following information is provided:
A statement of the questions posed as a result of the Call for Issues;
The current Arizona regulations, if any, related to the issue;
A summary of comments from the Call for Issues;
A description of regulations in other states relevant to the issue;
Case studies which describe how other states have approached the issue;
Options for dealing with the issue; and
Points to consider when assessing the potential impact of each option on child care
availability, affordability and quality.
ISSUE: LIMITS FOR DAY CARE HOMES
1. Limits: How many total children are allowed in day care homes: a) before regulation is
required, b) with regulation? Are limits individualized to the provider and based on the
person's education, experience, space and performance? Are there exceptions to the limits
to provide for the care of siblings in the same home?
2. Age Group Limits: What are the limits for children in specified age groups, e.g., under two?
Are limits individualized to the provider and based on the person's education, experience,
space and performance? Are there exceptions to the limits to provide for the care of
siblings in the same home?
3. Provider's Own Children: How many of the provider's own children are allowed in the day
care home while enrolled children are present (for compensation)?
4. BeforeIAfter School: Are additional school age children allowed in day care homes before
and after school?
CURRENT SKUATlON IN ARIZONA
Limits:
Persons providing child care in their homes for four or fewer unrelated children for compensation are not
required to be licensed, certified or registered in the state of Arizona.'
Persons who provide care and supervision in their own home for any pan of the day for compensation for
one to four chldren must be certified by the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) if they are
receiving public funds for any of the children in their care (with the exception of specified relatives who are
required only to be fingerprinted and registered). These homes are called family day care homes and are
regulated in accordance with Arizona Administrative Code R6-5-52. As of 11/15/92, there were
approximately 1,200 certified family day care homes statewide. Persons who provide these services to all
private pay children are not required to be regulated.
Persons who provide care and supervision for compensation in their own home for five to ten children are
required to be certified by the Ariiona Department of Health Services (ADHS). These homes are called day
care group homes and are regulated in accordance with Ariiona Revised Statute 36-897 et seq. and
Arizona Administrative Code R9-5-701-1006.A~o f 11115 /92, there were 115 certified day care group homes
statewide. Although the process is called certification, it is comparable to licensing in other states; that is,
there are statutes and rules governing the process and a provider may not legally operate in the state
without a "license" awarded after inspection by ADHS.
' Licensing typically involves fire, healthlsanitationand state agency inspection prior to the issuance of
a license required to operate legally and periodic inspections thereafter. Registration involves being listed
as a provider, and may require compliance with a set of standards with or without outside inspection.
Cetffication may be the same as licensing or the same as registration; it may involve inspections or self-inspections.
The distinction is neither clear nor consistent across states.
There is no provision in the day care group home regulations for individualized limits based on the
provider's education, experience or performance; however, limits may be set based on the amount of space
available for use by children in care.
There are no exceptions to limits in the day care group home regulations to allow for the care of siblings
in the same home.
Day care homes participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) must be certified by
ADES or ADHS or must have alternate approval through the Arizona Department of Education (ADE).
CACFP alternate approval homes are subject to the same rules with regard to limits as ADES certified
homes.
Age Group Limits:
ADES regulations currently limit the provider to caring for two children under the age of two, including the
provider's own children. The CACFP utilizes the ADES age group ratios and limits.
ADHS regulations currently place limits neither on the number of children under age two nor on any other
age group.
There is no provision in the ADHS regulations for individualized age group limits based on the provider's
education, experience or performance; however, ADHS limits may be set based on the amount of space
available for use by children in care. Space requirements are specific to the ages of the children in care.
There are no exceptions to age group limits in the ADHS regulations to allow for the care of siblings in the
same home.
Provider's Own Children:
ADES regulations, as amended by a policy directive, allow the provider to care for up to two children
related to the provider not for compensation in addition to four children for compensation, if all children are
at least two and under thirteen years of age; or one child related to the provider if there is a child in care
(either related to the provider and not for compensation or for compensation) under age two. The CACFP
follows the ADES policy with regard to the provider's own children.
ADHS regulations allow the provider to care for up to five of hislher own children under age thirteen, in
addition to ten for compensation.
BeforeJAfter School:
Neither ADES, ADHS nor the CACFP allow the provider to exceed the stated limits for any period of time,
such as before or after school, during school breaks or during the summer.
CALL FOR ISSUES
In the Call for Issues conducted prior to the initiation of this research project, numerous respondents
identified issues related to the regulation of day care homes. Following is a sample of the issues raised:
Regulation of day care homes. There were various points of view expressed, ranging from
requiring at least some basic level of regulation for all day care homes caring for children
for compensation to deregulation of day care homes.
Limits for family day care. Several respondents felt that limits for family day care homes
should be increased. The most frequently recommended number was six. Some indicated
that the limit should be a flat six, including the provider's own children. Others said the limit
should be six, plus the provider's own children. Others felt the limits should be decreased
(although the respondents did not specify whether in family day care homes or day care
group homes.)
Individual limits. Some felt that limits should be individualized to the capabilities of the
provider or be left to the discretion of the parents.
Sibling care. Exceptions to the limits for sibling care was mentioned.
Age group limits. Some recommended increasing the limit on infants in family day care
homes; some felt there should be no age-specific limitations. Others felt that there should
be age-specific limitations in day care group homes.
Provider's own children. It was suggested that the provider's children over age two or,
alternatively, children in school should not be counted in the limits for family day care
homes.
Beforelafterschool and overlaps. It was recommended that school age children in care not
be included unless in care over a certain number of hours. Overlaps for a period of time
were mentioned also, without specifying the age of the children.
STATE OF M E STATES
Limits:
Many states make a distinction between family (or small) day care homes and group (or large) day care
homes. There is much variation from state to state in definition of these terms. In addition, states vary
considerably in the degree or type of regulation (i any) applied. The state may regulate the homes by
licensing, registering or certifying the setting. There may be a visit to the home or the home may self-certify.
Regulation may be mandatory or voluntary and may depend on whether or not the home receives public
funds. The actual regulations also vary greatly. In addition, many states are in the process of changing their
day care home regulations. As of August 1992, over 20 states reported to the Children's Foundation that
they had pending legislative or regulatory changes which would affect family or group day care homes.
For purposes of assessing the various state approaches to regulation of day care homes, Table 2 and
Table 3 divide day care homes into small (typically 1-6 children) and large (typically 7-12 children). Where
states have only one category, the state may appear in both tables. There may or may not be separate
regulations for small and large day care homes.
Table 2 shows that 21 states license family day care homes. Of these, four states license homes for even
one child; three more begin licensure at two children (may be stated as one in their regulations but with
an exemption for the care of children from only one unrelated family); two more at three children; four more
at four children; and the remaining seven license if there are five children in the home. One state has
voluntary licensure for 1-6 children.
A group of six states certify family day care homes. Two start with one child; three stan with four children;
and Arizona starts with five children.
Registration is required in 16 states. Half start with one child; one starts with two children; four start with
three children; and the remaining three start with four children. An additional eight states have voluntary
registration, all starting with one child. In addition to these eight, Kentucky has voluntary registration for 1-3
children and Tennessee for 1-4 children. Larger homes have other forms of regulation in these two states.
Table 3 shows that most states which have group day care homes require licensure (33). (One state allows
either licensure or registration.) An additional five require certification and three require registration. The
remaining states have no provision for group day care homes. While five states deal with homes caring for
six children as group day care homes, the majoriity (27) start when there are seven children in care. The
remaining eight allow more than seven before the home is categorized as a group day care home.
The maximum number of children allowed in the home varies from nine to 20. Children related to the
provider, the children of assistants and additional school age children before and after school may also be
"added on" to the maximum depicted here for some states.
Table 2.
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FAMILY (SMALL) DAY CARE HOMES
Source of Data: The Children's Foundation, 1992 Family Day Care Licensing Study, updated with data
collected by the Children's Defense Fund and reference to state regulations where available.
Notes:
There may be exemptions in addition to the ones noted in this chart. For example, at least seven states
exempt day care homes caring for children from only one family in addition to the provider's own. This is
taken into consideration in this chart, but there may be others. This information was not available for all
states.
Many states require day care homes which are otherwise exempt to be regulated if the home is receiving
public funds. These additional requirements are not reflected in this table. Some or all of the provider's own
children may be counted. These are not included in this table, unless specified. Some states allow
additional school age children for a period of time before and after school. These are addressed in the
COMMENTS column, if the information was available.
NUMBER OF CHILDREN STATES
ALLOWED IN THE HOME
Liiensure Required (N=20):
1-5 District of Columbia
Alabama
Washington
1 -7 Oklahoma
California
Colorado
2-1 0 Minnesota
3-6 Wyoming
3-1 2 Maine
New Hampshire
Utah
Illinois
Wisconsin
Nevada
New Mexico
North Dakota
Tennessee
COMMENTS
+2 beforelafter school
+3 beforelafter school
may choose licensure or
registration
+3 beforelafter school
+ 1 -2 beforelafter school
+4 beforelafter school
+2 beforelafter school
voluntary registration for 14
Llcensure Voluntary (N=l) :
1-6
Certification Required (N =6):
1 -6
Registration Required (N= 16):
1-5
1-6
Alaska
Missouri
Indiana
Idaho
Delaware
0 hio
Kentucky
Rhode Island
Nebraska
Arizona
Florida
Connecticut
Kansas
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
South Carolina
Maryland
Vermont
North Carolina
Georgia
Hawaii
New York
Pennsylvania
Texas
West Virginia
self-certification
voluntary registration for 1-3
self-certification
+2 beforelafter school
+ 5 beforelafter school
+3 beforelafter school
+4 beforelafter school
+3 beforelafter school
+2 beforelafter school
+6 beforelafter school
Reg$tration Voluntary (N =8):
1-5 Arkansas
Mississippi
New Jersey
Virginia
Iowa
Louisiana
Oregon
South Dakota
+ 5 beforelafter school
+2 beforelafter school
Table 3.
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP (LARGE) DAY CARE HOMES
Source of Data: The Children's Foundation, 1992 Family Day Care Licensing Study, updated with data
collected by the Children's Defense Fund and reference to state regulations where available.
Note: Some or all of the provider's own children may be counted. These are not included in this table,
unless specified. Additional children may be allowed beforelaher school. Current information not available
on all states.
NUMBER OF CHILDREN STATES
ALLOWED IN THE HOME
Licemure Required (N =34):
3-1 2 Maine
6-9 Virginia
6-1 2 Indiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
6-1 6 Arkansas
7-1 1 Wyoming
Alabama
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
0 hio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
COMMENTS
or may choose to be
registered
Georgia
Tennessee
11-14
1 1 -20
13-20
Certification Required (N =5):
5-1 0
7-1 1
7-1 2
9-1 2
Registration Required (N =3):
7-1 1
7-1 2
North Dakota
Alaska
Illinois
Minnesota
Missouri
South Dakota
Ariiona
Delaware
Idaho
Oregon
Nebraska
Connecticut
Montana
No P r M i n for Group
(Large) Day Care Homes
(N=9):
District of Columbia
Florida
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
0 klahoma
West Virginia
Wisconsin
At least half of the states require day care homes which accept public funds to meet regulations, while
exempting homes caring for the same number of children if no public funds are accepted. At least the
following states have such a requirement:
Alaska
Ariiona
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
0 hio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Table 4.
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR DAY CARE HOMES
BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN ALLOWED IN THE HOME
Source of Data: The Children's Foundation, 1992 Family Day Care Licensing Study. Data have been
updated based upon telephone contacts w2h a// states and where changes in regulation have been noted
since the study.
Note: This chart does not count additional children allowed in the home before and after school (if a
distinction could be made from the available information), nor the provider's children if not counted toward
the maximum. The chart does not include additional requirements for homes receiving public funds. Some
states exempt homes caring for children of more than one unrelated family; this accounts for some states
which Start regulation at two children.
INSERT TABLE 4 HERE
Comprehensive information was not available regarding the individualization of day care home limits
depending on the provider's education, experience or performance. It is, however, common to establish
limits for a given provider based on space available. The State of Washington does base maximum
capacity, in part, on the provider's experience and training and the assistant's qualifications. For example,
an unassisted provider may care for a maximum of six children (birth-1 1 yrs.) initially, but may care for eight
children (2-1 1 yrs.) to ten children (5-1 1 yrs.) with one year's experience. With two years' experience and
one early childhood education class, the provider may care for ten children (3-1 1 yrs.).
Comprehensive information was not available regarding exemptions on limits to allow for the care of siblings
in a day care home. Neither the regulations reviewed nor the resource people who were interviewed
suggested that such an exemption is in effect. Since an exhaustive review of all regulations was not part
of this project, however, the existence of such an exemption cannot be ruled out. It is, however, clearly not
the norm.
Table 4. REGULATOW REQUIREMENTS FOR DAY CARE HOMES
NUMBER OF CHILDREN ALLOWED IN THE HOME:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Callfornla
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
lllinols
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Malne
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohlo
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Table 4. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR DAY CARE HOMES
NUMBER OF CHILDREN ALLOWED IN M E HOME:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
CalHornia
Colorado
Caonecticd
Delaware
D.C.
FlorMa
Georgia
Hawaii
Maho
lllinols
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mlchlgan
Minnesota
Mbhippl
Mluour(
Montana
Nebask.
Nevada
New Hamphire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Notth Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rh* UJnd
South Carolina
Swth Dakw
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Age Group Limits:
Some states specify a maximum number of children from specified age groups; others do not. Some are
stated as maximums; others are stated as ratios. The following table lists the maximum number of children
under age two allowed per day care home provider. If there is a difference between family day care homes
and group day care homes, and the information was available for both, both are specified.
Table 5 shows that the highest number of states (1 5) allow a day care home provider to care for two or
fewer children under age two. The next largest group of states (14) allow four children under age two per
provider. Nine states allow three; seven states allow six; three states allow five; and the remaining three
states allow more or have no mandatory regulation.
Table 5.
NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER AGE TWO PER DAY CARE HOME PROVIDER
Source: Children's Defense Fund, Who Knows How Safe, 1990; The Children's Foundation, 1992 Family
Day Care Study; and individual state regulations.
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STATES
CHILDREN UNDER AGE TWO
Two (N=15)
Three (N=9)
Alaska
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Washington
Wyoming
Arkansas
Illinois
Kansas
Minnesota
Montana
New Jersey
COMMENTS
up to 30 months
up to 18 months
up to 18 months; then 4
allowed
up to 18 months
up to 18 months
2 if under 1 yr., 3 fi under 30
months
3 if no preschoolers, 2
otherwise
0 hio
Utah
Vermont
2 if mixed ages
2 if mixed ages
Four (N=14)
Five (N=3)
Six (N=7)
Seven (N=l)
Nine (N=l)
Not Applicable (N=l)
California
Delaware
Iowa
Maine
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Wisconsin
Arizona
Florida
0 klahoma
Alabama
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kentucky
North Carolina
South Carolina
West Virginia
Mississippi
Louisiana
4 if under 2 yrs. only, 3 if
mixed ages
4 if under 2 yrs. only, 3 if
mixed ages
2 if under 18 months and
mixed ages
of which no more than 2 may
be under 1 yr.
up to 18 months
for licensed homes
only 2 under 2 yrs. are
permitted in certified family
homes for 1-4 children; 5
children are permitted per one
provider in certified day care
group homes with no age
specified
no mandated regulation
Provider's Own Children:
States address the issue of the provider's own children in differing ways. Table 6 describes the number of
provider's children, if any, counted in determining the maximum number of children allowed in the day care
home. The table shows that most states (21) count the provider's young children, although they differ in
the age or definition. Another 11 states count all of the provider's own children and nine count all children
up to a certain age beyond school age (e.g., age 11).
Table 6.
PROVIDER'S OWN CHILDREN IN THE DAY CARE HOME
Source of Data: The information contained in this table was obtained from various sources. The original
source of data was the Children's Foundation, 1992 Family Day Care Licensing Study. Information
contained therein was compared with data in the Children's Defense Fund's publication Who Knows How
Safe, 1990. Dflerences were reconciled, where possible, by review of the day care home regulations from
the state in question. There are often definifional issues when dealing with data from mult@/e sources,
Efforts were made to represent the information as correctly and consistently as possible.
STATES COMMENTS
Provider's Preschool Children Counted Toward
Maximum (N=21):
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Iowa
Kentucky
Maryland
Montana
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
0 hio
0 klahoma
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming
Provider's Other Children Counted Toward
MaDdmum (Age Specified) (N=9):
if under 6 yrs.
if 6 yrs, or under
if under 2 yrs. (at discretion of department); fire
code requires if under 6 yrs.
if under 6 yrs.
if under 6 yrs.
not in kindergarten or school
if under 6 yrs.
if under 5 yrs.
if under 6 yrs.
if under first grade
if under 2 yrs.
if under 6 yrs. for licensing (6-9 children); for
voluntary registration (1 -5 children), unlimited
if under 6 yrs
California
Idaho
if under 12 yrs.
if under 12 yrs.
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
All Provkler's Own Children Counted Toward
Maximum (N=l I):
Alaska
Colorado
Kansas
Maine
Massachusetts
North Dakota
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Washington
Maximum Number of Provider's Children
Specifiid (N=2):
Ariiona
New Jersey
Provider's Children Not Counted (N=l):
Alabama
Georgia
Mississippi
Missouri
Pennsylvania
Nevada
Tennessee
if under 12 yrs.
if under 11 yrs.
if under 7 yrs.
if under 11 yrs.
if under 8 yrs. for group day care; for family day
care, unlimited
if under 10 yrs.
if under 7 yrs.
not in rules, required by fire marshal
all are counted for group day care; for family day
care, there are different requirements
+5 children related to the provider not for
compensation
+3 of the provider's children
provider's children are not counted for family day
care (4-6);o wn children 10 yrs. and under are
counted in determining ratios for group day care
provider's children under 9 yrs. are counted in
determining ratios
Not Applicable (N=l):
Louisiana
BeforeIAfter School:
Numerous states have provision for additional children to be in care before and after school. Some also
have a maximum number of hours for before and after school care. These exceptions may be written into
regulation or may be a matter of policy. At least the following 20 states have an "add-on" for before and
after school hours:
Arkansas (+2)
Colorado (+2)
Connecticut (+3)
Delaware (+2)
Florida (+5)
Georgia (+2)
Illinois (+4)
Iowa (+5)
Kansas (+2) (for homes caring for 7-12 children)
Nebraska (+2)
New York (+2) (for homes caring for 7-12 children)
New Hampshire (+3)
New York (+2) (for homes caring for 7-12 children)
North Carolina (+3 if school age only, otherwise +2)
North Dakota (+2)
South Dakota (+2)
Texas (+6)
Utah (+2)
Vermont (+4)
Virginia (+5)
Wyoming (+3)
CASE STUDIES
Licensure: California
California currently licenses family day care homes for 1-12 children under the age of 18 and has been
doing so for at least 20 years. The provider's own children under age 12 (and the children of an assistant,
if applicable) are included in the maximum. Since the mid-1980s, no license has been required if the
provider cares for children from only one family other than hislher own. Providers are also exempted if they
care for children without compensation and meet certain other criteria.
There is a single set of regulations governing day care homes, although there are additional standards for
homes caring for 7-12 children. There are approximately 48,000 family day care homes; about 10 percent
of these are large (7-12 children).
There is an announced visit prior to licensing and unannounced visits every three years thereafter. In
addition, unannounced visits are made to an additional 10 percent of the day care homes annually.
Legislation has been passed which will require annual visits. This will take effect when sufficient funds have
been accumulated in a fund created through the sale of certain environmental auto license plates.
According to licensing officials, who are responsible for regulation of over 100,000 day care and residential
settings, there are no proposed changes to the method of regulating family day care homes in California.
Source of Information: Bill Jordan, California Communliy Care Licensing Division,
Registration: Texas
Texas currently registers family day care providers caring for 4-12 children (typically 6, plus 6 beforelafter
school) and licenses group day care homes caring for 7-12 children. There are over 15,000family day care
homes and over 900 group day care homes in the state.
According the Cris Ros-Dukler, Licensing Department, Texas Department of Human Services, the state has
the strongest set of standards in the country for registration of family day care homes. Their new minimum
standards, which became effective July 1990, require the most hours of orientation and annual training of
any states which require both. They require the provider, who must be at least 21 years old, to have a high
school diploma or GED, proof of first aid and CPR and mandatory attendance at six hours of orientation.
As of January 1992, an initial inspection is now required prior to registration. There is no annual inspection
visit after the initial inspection; visits are made if there is a complaint. The Department recently conducted
monitoring visits to a 20 percent sample of all registered family day care homes; 3,065 were monitored
between July 1990 and June 1991. The purposes of the visits were to monitor compliance with standards,
collect information on registered homes, provide information to registered homes and to strengthen the
partnership between the Department and the providers.
The results of the survey were utilized to assess levels of compliance with each standard and the various
categories of standards. The study showed that over 50 percent of the providers were out of compliance
with five standards:
Has 40BC (or approved) fire extinguisher. (60% out of compliance)
Keeps immunization records of children. (58% out of compliance)
Adults in home have completed TB exam, if required. (56% out of compliance)
Has all required first aid supplies. (54% out of compliance)
Keeps TB test records for children in care. (53% out of compliance)
Between 25 percent and 49 percent of the providers in the sample were out of compliance with the
following standards:
Keeps all required phone numbers posted near phone. (44% out of compliance)
Keeps emergency medical authoriiation for children. (43% out of compliance)
Has current certificate in first aid. (39% out of compliance)
Has current certificate in CPR. (33% out of compliance)
Emergency forms taken when children away from the home. (32% out of compliance)
First aid supplies taken when children away from the home. (30% out of compliance)
Keeps required animal vaccination records for pets. (29% out of compliance)
Although at lower levels of noncompliance, it was found that 20 percent of the homes had caregivers under
21 years old who did not meet qualifications; 19 percent of the homes had some form of citable hazard;
and 16 percent had not submitted criminal history forms for other adults in the home.
The factors which were found to increase compliance included: membership in a child care association,
membership in a child referral service, a high school diploma, hours of training in child care and attendance
at minimum standards training. All providers (1 00%) agreed that minimum standards promote health and
safety of children; 96 percent agreed that monitoring promotes health and safety of children.
This project was the basis for what is now an ongoing program of inspections to a random sample of
providers annually. The department is currently doing a 30 percent sample.
Source of Information: Cris Ros-Dukler, Texas Department of Human Services.
Certification: Kentucky
Kentucky has recently changed its method of regulating family day care. Prior to July 15, 1992, day care
homes caring for 4-12 children were required to be licensed. Kentucky now requires mandatory certification
for day care homes caring for 4-6 children and continues to license day care homes serving 7-12 children.
Kentucky was experiencing a shortage of family day care homes. The rigor of the licensing process was
reported to have been a deterrent to potential providers who might have been able to care for more than
three children. Providers caring for only three children indicated that it was difficult for them financially to
survive with only three children for compensation.
A broad coalition of advocates, family home providers, state staff and legislators supported the change of
status from licensure to certification for small day care homes. There was some opposition from licensed
family home providers, but this did not impede the movement toward change.
Providerlchild ratios were included in the same legislative package with the status change. Prior to this,
there had been no ratios for family homes. Supporters saw the change as a good way to increase quality
(through the introduction of ratios for homes), while also increasing availability (more homes would apply
for certification than for licensure) and maintaining affordability (small homes would not have to charge more
to stay in business).
Emergency regulations went into effect in July 1992. A coalition of individuals including providers and
advocates assisted in the development of regulations which were approved in November 1992.
Source of Information: Nancy Bruner- Wilson, Kentucky Child Care Services Branch.
Proposal for Change: Wisconsin
Wisconsin is another state which has assessed its family day care regulation process in recent years. In
1989, Wisconsin developed a proposal to change its regulatory process. The proposal called for the
regulation of all day care homes serving children, initial inspection and then inspections on a random
sampling basis thereafter. At the time, day care homes caring for 1-3 children were required to be certified
if they received public funds. Day care homes caring for 4-8 children were required to be licensed. The
provider's own children under the age of seven were included in the maximum. Licensed homes were
inspected prior to licensing and annually thereafter.
The proposal received a negative response from those who chose to comment on it. It was not pursued
further. Rather than providing additional safeguards for children in small, family day care homes, it was
viewed as a weakening of safeguards for children in larger group day care homes. No further changes are
being pursued at this time, according to the state licensing administration.
Source of Information: David Edie, Wisconsin Division of Community Services.
The options identified through the Call for Issues and a review of other states are specified below. Inclusion
in the list below does not imply a recommendation by the authors. Options are not mutually exclusive.
Option One: Increase regulation of day care homes, through one or more of the following means:
Require all day care homes caring for one or more children for compensation to be
regulated (i.e., licensed, certified or registered), or lower the number of children for whom
a day care home provider can care without being regulated.
Establish age-specific ratios or limits for day care group homes.
Count morelall of the provider's/assistants' children toward the maximum allowed.
CONSIDERATIONS
Availabil~?y- The impact of requiring additional day care homes to be regulated depends
on a number of factors. If regulations are perceived as reasonable and there are sufficient
incentives (e.g., training, subsidies, referrals), the availability may not be adversely affected.
Conversely, if the standards are perceived as onerous, or the process is complex or
expensive, some providers may decide to quit providing care or to operate "underground."
Establishing age-specific ratios or limits may affect the continued operation of existing day
care group homes. Counting more or all of the provider's children toward the maximum
may also affect existing day care group homes.
Affordabiliy - Requiring additional day care homes to be regulated may have an impact
on affordability, if providers find that the cost of compliance increases their costs. If
regulation of additional homes were accompanied by an increase in the maximum number
of children allowed in the home and standards perceived by providers as reasonable were
adopted, there might not be a negative impact on affordability, because providers could
spread their costs among a larger number of children.
Establishing age-specific ratios or limits may affect the total costs to the provider and,
therefore, affect affordability. Counting more or all of the provider's children may limit the
number of children and result in costs being spread across fewer children.
In addition, increasing the number of regulated day care homes may result in increased
administrative cost at the state level. Costs would include development and enforcement
of regulations.
Qualky - More homes would be subject to child care standards and would have access
to provider training and information helpful to them in improving the quality of the care they
provide.
Establishing age-specific ratios or limits would likely decrease the number of infants cared
for by a single provider and could result in greater attention to those infants in care.
Option Two: Decrease regulation of day care homes, through one or more of the following means:
Increase the number of children who can be cared for in a family day care home before
regulation is required by law.
Use a less stringent method of regulating day care group homes (e.g., registration) or less
stringent standards.
Do not count the provider's/assistants' children toward the maximum allowed.
Allow additional children before and after school and overlaps, of either specified or
unspecified duration.
CONSIDERATIONS
Availabilify - An increase in the number of children who can be lawfully cared for in family
day care homes may increase the availability of lawful child care. Provider groups have
reported that they feel they can care for more than four children, or are already doing so
when their own children are included. These providers feel they can care for more children
and that more individuals would begin to provide care if they could take a larger number
of children.
Less stringent methods of regulation or less stringent standards may increase the
availability of day care homes, if providers previously hesitant to come forward were to do
SO.
Not counting the provider's own children or allowing additional children before and after
school could result in more children in care and, therefore, potentially greater availability.
Affordabilify- An increase in the number of children who can be lawfully cared for in family
day care homes could have a positive effect on affordability. Costs could be spread among
a larger number of children.
Less stringent methods of regulation or less stringent standards may cost providers less
and result in lower cost of care.
Not counting the provider's own children or allowing additional children before and after
school could result in more children in care and, therefore, potentially lower costs.
Quality - The impact on quality which would result from an increase in the number of
children who could be lawfully cared for in a family day care home depends on several
factors. It would depend on the maximum number. If the number is set at a flat six children,
including the provider's own, there should be no change, since providers can have up to
two of their own children now. If the increase in maximum is accompanied by a
requirement to be regulated in some way, quality could improve. If not, and the maximum
is increased, there could be a diminishing of attention for each child.
Less stringent methods of regulation or less stringent standards may decrease quality.
Before the impact can be determined, an assessment would need to be made to
determine whether or not existq day care group home standards ensure quality. Reduced
regulation such as self-certification or registration are likely to result in reduced compliance
to standards.
Not counting the provider's own children or allowing additional children before and after
school could result in more children in care and, therefore, less attention to each child.
Option Three: Maintain existing processes and standards.
Availability - No impact
Affordability - No impact
Quality - No impact
-I ISSUE: MONITORING
QUESTIONS
1. Regulations: How is consistency promoted in regulations among various agencies which
regulate child care?
2. Monitoring: How many agencies are involved in monitoring child care settings? What are
their roles and responsibilities? How is the process coordinated?
CURRENT SrrUATlON IN ARIZONA
Regulations:
A comparison was made of the regulations applied to:
Family day care homes certified by the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES)
when 1-4 children in the home are receiving child care subsidy,
Day care group homes certified by the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) for
5-1 0 children,
Child care centers licensed by ADHS, and
Homes and centers designated as "alternate approval" settings by the Arizona Department
of Education (ADE) in order to receive funding under the Child and Adult Care Food
Program (CACFP).
This comparison is available from ADES, Child Care Administration.
There are approximately 1,200 family day care homes certified by ADES, 115 day care group homes
certified by ADHS, and 1,300 child care centers licensed by ADHS. According to ADE, there are 1,163
alternate approval day care homes participating in the CACFP, in addition to 923 ADES certified homes,
41 ADHS certified homes and 141 military homes. There are approximately 280 sponsoring organizations.
These include military, tribal, center and public school sponsoring organizations. Specific information on
the number of center-based programs will be available in early 1993.
The regulatory review comparison shows that there are few requirements across agencies which contradict
each other. That is, a provider is not likely to fail to meet one agency's requirement by following another.
This is an interesting finding in light of some of the responses generated from the Call for Issues. Some
individuals believed that specific regulations applied by one agency opposed another's. What this review
does not take into account is the interpretation one may apply to a given requirement. For example, fire
and sanitation inspectors may not enforce standards in the same way.
When comparing the regulations, it was found that many differences are differences in processes, and
specifically differences in time frames (e.g., ADES requires providers to notlfy the Department of a change
of ownership within at least 15 days of the effective date while ADE requires notification within 30 calendar
days. ADHS requires at least a 15 day notification from a certified day care group home operator of
additionsldeletions of household members or voluntary closure; for centers, the licensee is required to
provide at least a 30 day notice of change in ownership).
As significant, or even more significant than this, is the fact that the regulatory comparison shows many
gaps in regulation (that is, subjects covered in one set of regulations but not in another). It is observed that
many agency requirements are addressed in one set of regulations but not in others. This may be an
expected result given each agency's scope of authority.
In addition to the requirements of ADES, ADHS and ADE CACFP, child care providers may be subject to
local zoning ordinances. Zoning issues are not included in this analysis. For more information on zoning
as it relates to day care homes, see Zoning: A Barrier to Famify Child Care - Arizona 1992, developed for
the American Express Foundation by the Children's Action Alliance.
Monitoring:
ADES requires certified homes to be inspected prior to certification and annually thereafter. Visits to the
home are required no less than once every three months (Arizona Administrative Code R6-5-52). Fire and
healthlsanitation inspections separate from ADES inspection are not required.
ADHS requires inspections of day care group homes prior to licensure and annually thereafter. Visits to the
home are required at least two times per year. At least one unannounced visit shall be made annually (ARS
36-897). Current ADHS policy is to make two unannounced visits each year. A fire inspection conducted
by a (state or local) fire official is required initially. If meals are served, a healthlsanitation inspection is
required; this takes the form of an annual self-evaluation.
ADHS requires inspections of child care centers prior to licensure and at least one unannounced visit per
year (ARS 36-885). Both fire and heakhlsanitation inspections are required annually.
ADE is required to review 33.3 percent of participating child care centers (including beforelafter school
programs) and day care home sponsoring organizations annually. Day care home sponsoring organizations
conduct annual alternate approval reviews for homes participating in the CACFP if the homes are not
certified by ADES or ADHS. Sponsoring organizations are required to visit all ahernate approval day care
homes or centers three times per year and beforelafter school programs (called "outside school hours"
programs) sbc times per year (7 CFR 226). In addition, there are the following requirements:
Child care centers. Centers receiving funding through the CACFP must be licensed by
ADHS and, therefore, are subject to the same heath and fire inspections as required by
ADHS (excluding those operated by the military or tribes or other exempt from licensing).
Beforelafter school programs. The sponsoring organization for "outside school hours"
programs is required to submit a copy of the cafeteria healtNsanitation inspection report
and the annual fire inspection report.
Day care group homes. Dz care group homes receiving funding through the CACFP must
be certified by ADHS and, therefore, are subject to the same health and fire inspections
as required by ADHS.
ADES certified day care homes. ADES certified homes are not required to have a
healthlsanitation or fire inspection other than what the ADES inspector performs.
Alternate approval day care homes. Alternate approval homes are required to have an
inspection by a county health inspector. The fire safety inspection may be conducted by
the sponsoring organization whose personnel have been trained by fire officials or by the
local fire department.
CALL FOR ISSUES
In the Call for Issues conducted prior to the initiation of this research project, numerous respondents
identified issues related to the monitoring of day care homes and child care centers in Arizona. Following
is a sample of the issues raised:
Inspection of centers. Respondents suggested that more enforcement activity is needed
and that more licensing staff are needed to carry out the inspections.
Inspection of day care homes. Respondents cited the need for regular, unannounced visits
and uniform enforcement of regulations. At least one respondent expressed the opinion
that visits should be announced, and another stated that inspectors should not be allowed
to inspect areas of the provider's home not open to children.
Identification of homes wer the lawful limit of children. Respondents mentioned that more
monitoring of limits in day care homes is needed.
Cons$tency in application of regulations. Respondents expressed concern about
inconsistency in interpretation of regulations by inspectors and the variation in enforcement
from program to program.
Number of agencies involved in regulation. Respondents mentioned that too many
agencies are involved in the regulatory process and that standards are inconsistent.
STATE OF M E STATES
A telephone survey was conducted to determine how states have organized their child care programs;
specifically, how many states have responsibility for child care regulation and subsidy programs in the same
department.
According to the responses received, there are 37 states which have child care licensing and subsidy
programs in the same department (although they may be in separate divisions of the same department).
The states are:
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
0 hio
0 klahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Of these 37 states:
11 were in human services departments
10 were in social services departments
5 were in children and/or family services departments
3 were in human resources departments
2 were in social and health services departments
2 were in health and human services departments
1 was in a health services department
1 was in a family and social services department
1 was in a health and welfare department
1 was in a public welfare department
In five states, a single agency has responsibility for child care licensure, child care subsidy programs and
the CACFP. These states are: Louisiana (social services), Maine (child and family services), Nebraska
(social services), New Mexico (child, youth and families) and Tennessee (human services). In most states
(33), the CACFP is operated by the state department of education or public instruction.
In the survey, state licensing personnel were also asked whether child care settings had separate
inspections from fire officials or sanitarians. Their responses are summarized below for the various types
of child care settings.
Family Day Care Homes
Fire Inspections. For homes that are regulated (either voluntary or mandatory), 34 indicated that
they do not require a separate fire inspection of family day care homes. Sixteen indicated that they
do require a separate fire inspection, typically conducted by a local fire authority or the state fire
marshall.
HealthISanitation Inspections. For homes that are regulated (either voluntary or mandatory), 37
indicated that they do not require a separate healthlsanitation inspection of family day care homes.
Thirteen indicated that they do require a separate fire inspection, typically conducted by a county
or state health inspector.
Group Day Care Homes
Fire Inspections. Of those states which regulate group day care homes, the majority (30) require
a separate fire inspection. Eleven do not require an inspection apart from that conducted by
licensing personnel.
HeaWSanitation Inspections. Of those states which regulate group day care homes, the majority
(26) require a separate healthlsanitation inspection. Fifteen do not require an inspection apart from
that conducted by licensing personnel.
Child Care Center
Fire Inspections. Nearly all states (49) require a separate fire inspection for child care centers.
HealthISanitation. Forty states require a separate healthlsanitation inspection. Eleven states either
allow licensing personnel to cover areas related to healthlsanitation or leave it to the discretion of
licensing personnel to request an inspection.
CASE STUDIES
Consistency Among Regulators: Pennsylvania
According to experts in the field of applying regulations, using an indicator system is one of the best
approaches to attaining consistency. Specific indicators are developed for licensing standards, typically with
criteria for achievement and the method of data collection specified.
Richard Fiene, Ph.D., has been working with the State of Pennsylvania on their indicator system. He is of
the opinion that indicator systems are helpful in maintaining high standards of quality and reliability in
licensing. Based on his experience in Pennsylvania, he believes that it takes about 18 months to develop
and implement a good indicator system.
Some keys to the development of a successful indicator system, according to Dr. Fiene, are:
Involvement of both providers and licensing staff,
Support from "the upper echelons of state government,"
Clear articulation of and agreement on the final product, and
Tests of reliability.
Pennsylvania licensing staff were very positive in describing their experience with the indicator manual.
According to their report, it provides a standardized format for licensing staff and providers. There is some
concern about the weighting system which is part of the system, but this area is being reviewed. They are
looking at an approach that would designate items along a continuum of low to high risk with enforcement
action matched to the level of risk.
For more information, see "Instrument Based Program Monitoring and Indicator Checklist System for Child
Care," by Dr. Fiene.
Source of Information: Richard Fiene, Ph, D., Pennsylvania State University; and Susan Miller, Pennsylvania
Department of Public Welfare.
Reducing the Number of Inspectors: Delaware
Family homes often lament the number of different inspectors who are required to come into their homes.
Delaware has taken steps to address this problem. Only state licensing staff now go into family day care
homes. They are responsible for conducting the fire and healthlsanitation inspections. If technical assistance
or a more thorough review is required, the licensing staff may call upon fire or healthlsanitation officials.
In order to ensure that the fire and heakh/sanitation areas are adequately addressed by licensing workers
in family day care homes, Delaware has developed indicators for each standard. These were developed
in coordination with the public health agency and joint training was conducted.
For centers, even though separate fire and healthlsanitation inspections are carried out, the standards,
along with a description of the intent of the standard and the methods of measurement, are included in the
child care center licensing manual. This helps to ensure consistency among inspectors, regardless of which
agency they represent.
Following is an excerpt from Delacare: Requirements for Day Care Centers, Indicator Manual
141. A Center shall ensure that staff and children wash their hands with soap and running water
and use single service towels for drying hands.
A. Before eating and handling food;
B. After toileting or diapering;
C. After coming into contact with fecal matter, urine, vomit, nasal secretions or other body
secretions;
D. After handling animals or their equipment or after coming into contact with an animal's
body secretions;
E. After caring for a child who may be sick; and
F. After cleaning.
Intent To prevent the spread of infectious disease, and to teach children good hygiene practices.
Health professionals, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, agree that careful
hand washing by staff and children is the simplest and most important basic measure to
control the spread of infection. They further suggest that written reminders of hand
washing policy be posted in each toilet room.
Indicators 141-ICA-IS-1 Ask Chief Administrator and staff about procedures for ensuring
proper handwashing as required.
141 -0-2 Observe handwashing as specified.
S~eciaIln struction Effective handwashing cannot be accomplished by using a common
bucket, pail or sink of water or a common washcloth for children.
Source of Information: Pauline Koch, Delaware Office of Child Care Licensing.
Simplifying the Process: Wisconsin
Wisconsin's efforts to streamline the regulatory process for family day care homes (4-8 children) have been
chronicled by William Gormley, Ph.D. Dr. Gormley has done considerable work in the area of simplifying
the morass of regulations applied to child care settings.
A few years ago, concerned that there were few regulated family day care homes in the state, child care
officials in Wisconsin held a series of public hearings and gathered input from an Advisory Committee.
Based on the input received, the Department of Health and Human Services developed new rules for family
day care homes. With the new rules came some deregulation.
The requirement for an annual fire inspection by a local fire department was dropped. According to David
Edie of the Wisconsin Department of HeaRh and Human Services, the applicable fire regulations were
included in the day care rules and were wriien in "user friendly terms." He indicated that the fire officials
were supportive and provided both initial input and review.
A memorandum of understanding with the state Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations was
approved, thereby giving the Department of Health and Human Services responsibility for enforcing the
state building code. As a result of these changes, the family day care home provider has to deal with only
one inspector. According to Mr. Edie, the most significant of the uniform dwelling codes were included in
the day care rules and, like the fire regulations, were written in "user friendly terms" with the assistance of
building code experts.
In his review of the Wisconsin experience, Dr. Gormley states:
Despite its simplicity, the streamlining of building inspections may ultimately prove more
significant that all of the rules changes combined. With one bold stroke, DHSS and DlLHR
have reduced the amount of time, the number of requirements, and the amount of money
required to obtain a state license. In addition, they have simplified and personalized the
regulatory process. Instead of confronting a bureaucratic maze, with dual or multiple
inspectors, family day care providers will now interact with one public official - a DHSS
inspector. These inspectors understand family day care and empathize with providers. This
transforms the regulatory process from an adversarial encounter to more of a supportive
relationship. Even if DHSS inspectors require providers to take certain steps or make
additional purchases, the providers can have greater confidence that the health and safety
of children is the underlying concern and that one inspector's judgment will not be second-guessed
by that of another. DHSS inspectors are likely to have more credibility with
providers than building inspectors, whether employed by state or local governments. In
encounters with building inspectors, providers sense indifference or hostility. To many
building inspectors, a family day care home is just another business. In encounters with
human services inspectors, providers sense a commitment to day care and a commitment
to children. Like providers, human services inspectors are, in a sense, in the day care
business. They may be playing different roles but they share a common interest in day
care and children. Thus friction between provider and human services inspectors is likely
to be far less acute.
According to Mr. Edie, the streamlining of the family day care regulatory process has resulted in a doubling
of the number of homes since 1989.
For more information, see Dr. Gormley's article, "Family Day Care Regulation in Wisconsin: The Bureaucracy
Heals Itseff," a paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Association for Public Policy and Management,
Arlington, Virginia, November 1989. Dr. Gormley will be making a presentation on related issues to the
United States Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations in December 1992. The paper will be
available for distribution after that time.
Source of Information: William Gormley, Ph.D., Georgetown University; and David Edie, Wisconsin
Department of Health and Human Services.
For More Information
The Government Accounting Office (GAO) is in the process of finalizing a paper on state licensing efforts;
the paper should be available after January 1993.
See also Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office of Evaluations and Inspections, "Enforcing Child Care
Regulations," and "Effective Practices in Enforcing Child Care Regulations," February 1990.
The options identified through the Call for Issues and a review of other states are specified below. Inclusion
in the list below does not imply a recommendation by the authors.
Option One: Improve consistency of applications through one or more of the following means:
Develop indicators for standards.
Have one inspector per site conduct all required inspections.
Jointly train inspectors from various agencies.
Make organizational changes such that enforcement of all child care regulations is the
responsibility of one agency.
CONSIDERATIONS
Availability- Particularly for home settings, having one inspector may encourage potential providers
and thereby increase the number of homes in operation. Consistency in application may have a
positive effect on maintaining homes.
Having one inspector is less feasible in centers, although consistency is likely to be welcomed by
centers.
Affordabillty - Consistently applied standards may not cost less, but are likely to allow providers to
better project and, therefore, better control their costs. Reducing the number of inspectors may cut
down on administrative time and may reduce this cost.
Quality - Consistently applied standards with clear criteria for compliance are likely to improve
quality. Indicators often serve a training function and provide clear guidelines for compliance
monitoring. Having to deal with fewer inspectors and better trained inspectors may reduce the time
required of the provider and allow more time for interaction with children, especially in a home
setting.
Option Two: Maintain current inspection approaches.
CONSIDERATIONS
Availability - No impact
Affordability - No impact
Quality - No impact
ISSUE: PROVIDER TRAINING FOR DAY CARE HOMES AND CENTERS
1. Qualifications: What qualifications are required for all child care providers, including directors, in
centers and in day care homes?
2. Training Requirements: What ongoing training is required?
3. Affordabili and Accessibility: How is training made affordable and accessible?
CURRENT SITUATION IN ARIZONA
Qualifications:
Family Day Care Homes (Ariiona Administrative Code R6-5-5206)
The Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) requires family day care providers to meet the
following: caregivers must be at least 18 years of age; adult members of the family must have a fingerprint
and background check.
Day Care Group Homes (Arizona Administrative Code R9-5-801)
The Arizona Department of HeaRh Services (ADHS) requires day care group home providers to meet the
following: providers must have a high school diploma or its equivalent, have current certification in first aid
and infantichild CPR; the primary caregiver must be 21 or older and any assistant 18 years of age or older.
All adults in the home must submit to fingerprinting and a background check.
Child Care Centers (Arizona Administrative Code R9-5-402)
Child care centers licensed by ADHS must comply with the following:
Center directors shall be at least 21 years of age and meet one of the following sets of minimum
academic and qualifying experience requirements:
Academic Course Work Child Care Qualifvina Exoerience
A high school diploma or its equivalent with at
least six hours of academic course work or 90
hours of documented workshop experience in
Early Childhood Education or Child Development.
A Child Development Associate's credential or its
equivalent with at least six hours of academic
course work or 90 hours of documented
workshop experience in Early Childhood
Education or Child Development.
2 years
18 months
One year of college with at least six hours of
academic course work in Early Childhood
Education, Child Development or closely related
field.
An Associate's Degree in Early Childhood
Education, Child Development or closely related
field.
A Bachelor's degree in Early Childhood
Education, Child Development or closely related
field.
18 months
6 months
3 months
Teacher-caregiversmust be at least 18 years of age and meet one of the following sets of minimum
academic and qualrfying experience requirements:
Academic Course Work Child Care Qualifvina Experience
High school diploma or its equivalent. 6 months
Child Development Associate's credential or
equivalent.
Associate's or Bachelor's degree in Early
Childhood Education, Child Development or
closely related field.
Assistant teacher-caregivers must be at least 16 years old and meet one of the following sets of
minimum academic and qualifying experience requirements:
Academic Course Work Child Care Qualifvina Ex~erience
High school diploma or its equivalent and an
interest in working with children.
Enrolled in high school H.E.R.O. program or
similar educational program approved by the
school governing board.
Enrolled in high school classes or equivalent and
an interest in working with children in summer
camps.
Training Requirements:
Family Day Care Homes (Arizona Administrative Code R6-5-5208.G)
ADES requires family day care providers to attend orientation which is conducted by local ADES staff. The
orientation includes information on applicable law, rules and regulations, procedures, health and safety
requirements, the precertification home visit, the communication process, guiding behavior, nutrition,
creative activity and use of material, record keeping and community resources.
There is no ongoing training requirement for family child care providers.
Day Care Group Homes (Ariiona Administrative Code R9-5-801 & 802)
ADHS requires day care group home providers to receive orientation provided by the Department. The
provider must orient each of the facilty's personnel and each household member to the statutes and rules
governing day care group homes and to the facility's policies and procedures.
In addition, the provider must be certified in first aid and infantichild CPR (through a course approved by
the Department). Caregivers must attend nine hours of inservice training each year which covers the
following content areas:
a. Orientation of all new employees to the day care group home and its policies and
procedures;
b. On-the-job training for all new personnel who need training in specific areas to meet their
job responsibilities;
c. Personnel responsibilities in complying with these statutes and rules;
d. Child health and safety procedures including recognition of illness and disease and training
in basic disease control techniques;
e. Child growth and development;
f. Child abuse prevention, detection and reporting;
9. Positive guidance and discipline;
h. Nutrition and good eating habits;
I. Availability of community services;
j. Family involvement and communication with families; and
k. Program planning and development.
Child Care Centers (Arizona Administrative Code R9-5-205, R9-5-401 .E and R9-5-403.A)
ADHS requires the applicant (for center license) to complete orientation for new owners and directors of
child day care centers within four months from the submission date of a licensure application.
In addition, one staff member with current certification in first aid training from a Department-approved
program and one staff member with current certification in CPR from a program approved by the American
Heart Association must be on the center premises at all times when the center is open and on field trips.
The Center director shall:
Provide, or make available, a minimum of 12 hours of inservice training each year for all
teacher-caregivers, assistant teacher-caregivers and other personnel as appropriate,
depending upon the needs of the program and qualifications of staff and volunteers. The
training shall include at least the following:
See a-k under Day Care Group Homes and add;
Creating a classroom environment
Arizona Department of Education
Child and Adult Care Food Program (7 CFR 226.6 and 226.1 6)
State agency administrative responsibilities include the following:
Each state agency shall provide sufficient consultative, technical and managerial personnel
to administer the program, provide sufficient training and technical assistance to institutions
and monitor performance to facilitate expansion and effective operation of the program ...
Each sponsoring organization shall ensure that fingerprint checks are conducted of all child
care personnel receiving federal child care food program monies ...
Each sponsoring organization shall provide adequate supervisory and operational
personnel for the effective management and monitoring of the program at all child
care ... facilities under its jurisdiction. At a minimum, such program assistance shall include: ...
Staff training for all child care ... facilities in program duties and responsibilities prior
to beginning program operations; and
Additional training sessions, to be provided not less frequently than annually.
CALL FOR ISSUES
In the Call for Issues conducted prior to the initiation of this research project, numerous respondents
identified issues pertaining to training. The majority of responses could be categorized into two major
areas: stafflprovider qualifications and training requirements (preservice and inservice). Following is a
sample of the issues raised:
Center director requirements. A few respondents felt that preservice qualifications for
center directors should be upgraded or that qualifications for this group need clarification.
In addition, a few respondents indicated that center directors should be required to receive
more training.
General staff qual'fiiom. Many respondents believed that center staff and providers
should meet more stringent qualifications to effectively carry out their roles. In addition to
general comments on this issue, some respondents specifically mentioned the positions
of child care worker, assistant caregiver and teacher. Most suggestions related to teachers.
Respondents had varying opinions as to what these qualifications should include:
Teacher. Some of the options included combinations of education, experience and
training. The following are some proposed examples: High school diploma and
Child Development Associate's credential (CDA), an Associate's degree in Early
Childhood Education or Development and experience, Bachelor's degree or
specific number of training hours, and teacher certification. Other responses were
more general (e.g., teachers should have an education and experience in child
care and teaching).
Assistant Caregiver. At least one respondent felt that assistant caregivers should
be required to complete a specific number of modules per semester leading to a
CDA.
Child care workers or caregivers. A few respondents felt that educational
standards for child care workers or caregivers should be required.
It was clear that the terms child care worker, caregiver and assistant caregiver meant
different things to different respondents. Some used the above terms generically and
others were more specific. Therefore, in some cases, it was difficult to determine the
applicability of the comments made related to these groups.
Availabilky of training. Many respondents felt that there needs to be more training provided
for all child care staff and providers. Most often, respondents indicated that the amount
and type of inservice training should be increased. A few respondents felt that specific
training content should be covered prior to service. Many respondents felt that training
offered should be more specialized and target specific types of caregivers. Some topic
areas mentioned were: behavior management, child interactions, special needs, health
education, safety, training on laws and rules and regulations, programming and nutrition.
A significant number of respondents felt that CPR and first aid training should be
mandatory.
Affordabmty of training. Several respondents felt that training should be provided at low or
no cost.
Accesslbiliky of training. Some respondents offered suggestions for how training could be
made more accessible to child care staff and providers. These recommendations included
providing training on videotape and disseminating training information through licensing
specialists. Several respondents mentioned the need for training to be more accessible to
them.
STATE OF THE STATES
Qualifications:
States differ greatly in their qualifications for child care personnel as well as their training requirements.
State educational certification systems generally concentrate on one role, the classroom teacher who works
with children from kindergarten through eighth grade, while licensing systems may define several roles in
centers and day care homes. Educational certification systems typically require individuals to have
completed a college degree prior to employment, but licensing systems may include a variety of alternative
routes to quaAcation, including professional education after employment in the field.'
The Center for Career Development in Early Care and Education at Wheelock College is currently in
process of publishing data from a comprehensive national study of career development in the field of early
care and education. The study was designed to present baseline information, or a "snapshot" of the
country, before the implementation of the Child Care and Development Block Grant. The primary focus
of the study is on early care and education programs in private settings and preschool programs in schools
and the findings reported are current as of May 1991. The only information currently released from the
study relates to the role of the teacher. The study defined certification narrowly to exclude certificates that
only cover kindergarten and above. The following represents the research findings:
Certification
In all, 34 states have an early childhood teaching certificate. States issue three different
types of certificates to qualify teachers to work with preschool children:
A specialized certificate for individuals to work only with children of prekindergarten
age (7 states);
An early childhood certificate that spans preschool and some elementary grades
(14 states); and
An early childhood endorsement added on to an elementary teaching certificate
(1 1 states).
In the 17 states with no early childhood teaching certificate, an individual certified for kindergarten and
above only is considered qualified to teach younger children.
Of the 34 states with early childhood certification or endorsement, all but two require a Bachelor's degree.
A wide range of degrees acceptable for certification/endorsement exist, from degrees in Early Childhood
Education to degrees in any field. Four states allow for alternative means of certification at the
CDNAssociate's degree level. Ten states require a competency test that includes Human Growth and
Development. Twenty-two of the 34 states with early childhood certification require a practicum with children
younger than kindergarten.
' Gwen Morgan and Bettina McGimsey, "States' Policies on Qualifications for Roles in Early Care and
Education," The Center for Career Development in Early Care and Education, 1992.
Licensing
According to the Center for Career Development in Early Care and Education, states list alternative
methods of qualifying for various roles combining more college coursework with less experience or vice
versa. For example, in 11 states the highest alternative specified for a classroom or master teacher is an
Associate's degree, a CDA, or a specified number of hours of coursework. Another 17 states include the
Bachelor's degree or above as their highest alternative for teachers. Only New York City requires teachers
in licensed centers to hold a state teaching certificate (covering K-8). The study further found that licensing
requirements typically place greater emphasis on experience working with preschool children than on
professional education qualifications. Some states will allow an individual to substitute experience for
education. Nine of the 17 states in which the highest alternative qualification for master or classroom
teachers is at least a Bachelor's degree still require experience over and above that degree.
Table 7 summarizes the presetvice education, experience and training requirements for child care center
personnel classifications. It shows that 43 states require center directors to meet preservice education
and/or experience requirements. The number is far less for teachers. Thirty states require teachers to meet
preservice education and/or experience requirements. Another eight states require teachers to have a high
school diploma or equivalent with two of these requiring additional experience beyond high school. Twenty-five
states have mandated preservice education and/or experience for assistant teachers while 18 states
require the same for teacher aides. For this group, the largest number of states (26) have no requirement
or the requirement is unknown. Table 8 provides a more detailed breakdown of preservice requirements
by state for each personnel classification. Many states are currently making changes in qualification
requirements and this should be kept in mind when reviewing this information. When known, the information
on a particular state was modified to include recent changes in qualification requirements.
Table 7.
SUMMARY OF CHILD CARE CENTER PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
Source of Data: The Children's Foundation 1991 Day Care Center Licensing Study; and Children's Defense Fund, Who Knows How Safe,
Position None or High High School/
Unknown School or GED and
GED Experience
Directors 2 2
Teachers 11 6 2 11 Assistant 1 18 1 5 (
Teachers
Presewice Preservice
Education Education
and/or
Certificate
STATE ABBREVIATIONS
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
0 hio
0 klahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Table 8.
CHILD CARE CENTER PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
Fund, Who Knows How Safe, 1990.
?d bv footnote.
;ource of Data: The Children's Foundation 1991 Day Care Center Licensing Study; and Children's Defensc
Jote: If multiple options were listed, the information was listed under the lowest required option and specif
l Arkansas. Requirement specifies high school plus 4 years experienceor a CDA or AA with emphasis in Early Childhood Education or Bachelor's
degree.
Arizona. Center directors may meet a combination of educational requirements with a corresponding amount of experience. For example, a
high school diploma or its equivalent with at least 6 hours of academic course work or 90 hours of documented workshop experience in Early
Childhood Education or Child Development and 2 years of experience. For specific information, refer to Qualifications section.
Michigan. CDA or 60 semester hours.
South Carolina. Three years experience in a licensed facility or a high school diploma with 1 year experience in a group day care home.
Certificate
w
(2)
Missouri. Sixty hours of college credit including 12 hours child related classes. May substitute 2 years experience for 48 hours of general
college.
Montana. Two years experience or Bachelor's degree in Education or related field and CPR.
Preservice
Education and
Experience
AL, AZ2,CA, CO,
CT, DE, HI, IL, IN,
IA, KS, KY, LA, MI^,
MS, NE, NV, NY,
OH, OK, PA, SC4,
TX, w, VI, WI
(26)
High
SchooVGED
and
Experience
AR1, TN
(2)
Position
Directors
' New Mexico. Preservice education only.
Utah. CDA or better in a related field and 2 years of experience.
West Virginia. High school diploma or GED, 9 college credits in Early Childhood Education or CDA and 1 year work experience with young
children.
lo Oregon. One year of training or experience.
Preservice
Education and/or
Experience
AK, DC, GA, ME,
MD, MA, MN,
~ 0 5 M, P , NH,
NJ, NM7, NC ND,
SD, WA, WY
(1 7)
Training
FL,
ORIO
(2)
None or
Unknown
ID, RI
(2)
High Literacy
School or
GED
Table 8. (continued)
CHILD CARE CENTER PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
l1 Ohio. For teachers, assistant teachers and aides, the requirement is high school or vocational-technical training course.
l2 Virginia. Child care supervisors - high school1GED and 1 year experience or CDA.
l3 Arizona. Qualifying experience required only for teachers who have a high school diploma or equivalent. Refer to Qualifications section for
specific requirements.
Position
Teachers
l4 Wisconsin. Applies to categories teacherslhead teachers, and assistant teachers.
lSM aine. Kindergarten programs run in centers must have certified teachers.
leN ew Hampshire. Teachers - 12 hours college credit.
l7 Oregon. For teachers, requirement is 1 year of training or experience; head teachers are required to have 2 years of training or experience
or Early Childhood Education/Development.
None or
Unknown
AK, ID, IA,
KY, LA, MI,
MO, NM,
SC, WA, WY
(1 1)
Preservice
Education and
Experience
AZ13, CAI CO, CT,
DE, HI, IL, IN, KS,
MS, NE, NV, NY,
PA, RI, TX, VT,
w114
(1 8)
High
School or
GED
AR, OH1',
OK, TN,
UT, WV
(6)
High
SchooVGED
and
Experience
AL, V112
(2)
Preservice
Education and/or
Experience
DC, GA, MA, MD,
ME15, MN, MT,
NHle, NJ, NC,
ND, SD
(1 2)
Certificate Training
FL,
ow7
(2)
Literacy
Table 8. (continued)
CHILD CARE CENTER PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
l8 Massachusetts. No requirements if the assistant teacher is at least 16 years of age.
le Arizona. Assistant teacher-caregivers must meet some educational requirements but are not required to have experience. For example, an
assistant teacher-caregiver may have a high school diploma or its equivalent and an interest in working with children. Refer to Qualifications section
for more detailed information regarding requirements.
20 Ohio. High school or vocational-technical training course.
21 New Hampshire. Six college credits.
Maryland. Regulations refer to school age group leaders, not assistant teachers.
Position
Assistant
Teachers
Preservice
Education and
Experience
CAI CO, DE, HI, IL,
IN, KS, MS, NE,
NV, NY, PA, RI, TX,
VT, WI
(1 6)
None or
Unknown
AK, CT, IA,
ID, KY, LA,
MA18, ME,
MI, MO, NJ,
NM, OR, SC,
VI, WA, WV,
w
(1 8)
Preservice
Education and/or
Experience
DC, GA, MN, MT,
NC, ND, NH2',
MDn, SD
(9)
High
School or
GED
AR, AZI9,
0H20, OK,
UT
(5)
High
SchooVGED
and
Experience
AL
(1)
Certificate Training
FL
(1
Literacy
TN
(1)
Table 8. (continued)
CHILD CARE CENTER PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
23 Some states may not have a specific aide designation (e.g., Arizona). Others may have only a minimum age requirement. The category none
may mean: that the state has no classification, teacher's aide; or that they do, but with no requirements or that the requirements are unknown.
Position
Teachers
Aide
24 West Virginia. No requirement for full-time aides; part-time must work under the supervision of a full-time teacher and have a work permit.
25 Ohio. High school or vocational-technical training course.
2s Colorado. Applies to infants and toddlers only.
Preservice
Education and/or
Experience
DC, GA, NC, SD,
WI
(5)
None or
Unkn0w1-1~~
AK, AL, AZ,
CT, DE, IA,
ID, KY, LA,
MA, MD, ME,
MI, MN, MO,
ND, NH, NJ,
NM, OR, RI,
SwC, 4VI,w ,W A,
(26)
High
SchooVGED
and
Experience
High
School or
GED
AR, OHz5,
OK, UT
(4)
Preservice Certificate
Education and
Experience
CA, Coal HI, IL,
IN, KS, MS, NE,
NV, NY, PA, TX, VT
(1 3)
Training
FL, MT
(2)
Literacy
TN
(1
Table 9 identifies the preservice education, experience, and training requirements for day care home
providers. Many states are reviewing their existing qualifications for day care home staff and adding new
requirements. The most current source containing information on preservice qualifications for day care
homes is the Children's Foundation's 1991 Family Day Care Licensing Study. In a few cases, information
taken from the Children's Foundation was updated based on state regulations.
The following table identifies 17 states which have specific qualifications for group day care home staff.
States requiring only a high school diploma or equivalent are not included. These requirements may apply
to only the primary caregiver or to all personnel working in the home. Most states which specrfy
requirements for group day care homes require staff to receive both education or training and experience
and offer varying atternatives to achieving the requirement. Eight states currently require family day care
providers to meet preservice qualifications. Six of these states mandate separate preservice requirements
for group day care staff. Generally, the requirements for family day care providers are not as extensive as
those for group day care home providers.
Table 9.
DAY CARE HOME PROVIDER QUALIFICATIONS
Source of Data: Children's Foundation, 1992 Family Day Care Licensing Study; updated with information from state regulations.
STATE TYPE OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
California
Colorado
Georgia
Kansas
Group Day Care
Group Day Care
Group Day Care
Group Day Care
One year experience as a regulated small family day care home
operator or as an administrator of a day care center (waiver by
director upon finding that applicant has sufficient qualifying
experience).
Three years experience, OR two years of college and one year
experience in a group day care home, OR certification as a Child
Development Associate (CDA), OR 40 hours of training and two
years experience as a licensed provider and two years experience
in a day care home.
One year child care experience as determined by the Department,
OR high school graduate or equivalent.
Within 60 days following the initial application for license or
employment, meet one of the following: Six months supervised
employment in a licensed facility with same age children, OR 10
hours directed reading and five sessions of observation (not less
than 2 112 hours each), OR a CDA, OR complete a minimum of
three hours of academic credit OR equivalent training in Child
Development, Eariy Childhood Education and curriculum
resources and supervised observation in high school or college,
OR three months experience with children of same age group as
enrolled in group day care center.
Kansas
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Family Day Care
Group Day Care
Family Day Care
Group Day Care
Providers must submit documentation within 60 days that one of
the following has been met: five sessions of observations (not less
than 2 112 hours each), OR a CDA, OR fieen hours of directed
readings, video tapes, etc., OR employment not less than three
months in a licensed family day care home, group family day care
home or child care center.
Master's degree in Early Childhood Education or Child
Development, no experience required, OR Bachelor's degree in
Early Childhood Education or Child Development, no experience
required, OR Master's or Bachelor's in any field other than Early
Childhood Education or Child Development and two years of paid
experience (full-time) in working with young children in a group,
OR Master's or Bachelor's degree in any field other than Early
Childhood Education or Child Development and 12 hours of Child
Development training, OR a CDA and 12 hours of Child
Development training, OR Associate's degree and 12 hours of
Child Development training, OR competency based vocational
training in Early Childhood Education plus 12 hours of Child
Development training, OR a high school diplomaIGED and 12
hours of Child Development training.
The applicant shall meet one of the following: One year full-time
experience or equivalent in caring for children younger than seven
years of age, OR nine months full-time experience and have
completed 1 5 hours of training, not including orientation approved
by the Office, OR six months full-time experience and completed
30 hours of training, not including orientation approved by the
Office, OR Certificate of Staff Quallications issued by Group Day
Care Licensing Program, Office of Children.
Must meet one of three separate qualification requirements to
begin care: One year experience as a licensed family day care
provider, OR combination of experience as a provider, teaching
assistant, nurse, etc. and speclic hours of training, OR a Child
Development education.
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
0 hio
Pennsylvania
Group Day Care
Family Day Care and
Group Day Care
Family Day Care
Group Day Care
Family Day Care and
Group Day Care
Group Day Care
Administrator
Family Day Care
Group Day Care
Primary Caregiver
Must meet one of the following: Two years experience as a
licensed family day care home provider, OR one year experience
in a large group day care home, OR two credit hours or 20 clock
hours in Early Childhood Education, Child Development or Child
Care Administration.
Caregivers must be at least 16 years old and have had a Child
Development course (i under 18 years old).
Family day care providers between 18-21 years of age must have
a child care vocational course approved by the State Department
of Education.
One year experience as a caregiver in a day care home or center.
Education requirements vary for different levels of care.
High school diploma and two years of experience or college and
15 hours inservice training annually until 45 hours are completed.
Twelve hours of inservice training the first year and six hours
annually unless educationally exempt and six hours in health and
safety in Family Day Care during the first year of certification.
Must meet one of the following: High School or GED and 30
hours from an accredited college in Early Childhood Education or
Child Development, Special Education, Elementary Education or
the Human Services Field, OR high school/GED including 600 or
more hours of secondary training, OR high school/GED and 15
hours of college in Early Childhood Education, Child
Development, Special Education, Elementary Education, or the
Human Services Field and one year experience with children, OR
high school/GED and completion of a postsecondary training
curriculum, OR high school/GED and two years of experience with
children.
South Carolina
South Dakota
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Group Day Care
Group Day Care
Group Day Care
Group Day Care
Family Day Care
Family Day Care and
Group Day Care
High school diplomdGED and CDA plus one year of experience
in a licensed/approved child care facility as a caregiver.
Registered providers have no requirements.
If 18 years old, Child Development Technician diploma or a CDA
required.
A person responsible for developing and implementing the
program in a facility of 12 or fewer children shall have one of the
following: Associate's degree in Early Childhood or HumanIChild
Development (including pediatric nursing), OR a CDA, OR two
years of experience working with groups of children and at least
one completed course of higher education in early childhood
related topics (completed within nine months).
One course in Early Childhood Education and two years
experience in child care to care for 12 children.
Forty hours of Early Childhood Education required within six
months of licensing. Ten hours of training in Infant/Toddler care
is required within six months after accepting infants or toddlers.
Provider must possess or have done at least one of the following:
High school/GED or three months of supervised experience or
education (at least six months for providers in group day care
homes), OR have completed five clock hours of Family Day Care
training prior to certification, OR have received a professional
credential from a nationally recognized organization.
Training Requirements:
States vary greatly in their requirements for continuing education of child care personnel. There are
variations not only in the hours of training required annually for staff but also the type of training required.
For example, more states require inservice training for center personnel than for home caregivers. However,
more states mandate orientation for home caregivers than for center staff.
Table 10 shows the continuing education requirements for child care center personnel and for day care
home providers.
States listed have indicated that they do require the listed training. States not included may require the
listed training, but did not specify this in the Children's Foundation survey which was the primary source
of information.
Orientation is required for day care home caregivers in at least 17 states, for center directors in at least
three states and for other center staff in at least seven states.
First aid is required for day care home providers in at least 20 states and CPR in 15. First aid and CPR are
required for center directors in very few states, but other center personnel are required to have first aid in
21 states and CPR in 14.
Several states listed no continuing education requirements for day care home providers (18), center
directors (44) or other center staff (9).
Some states indicated that they had a requirement, but did not speclty the amount of time or the topics.
For day care home caregivers, the highest number of states (1 6) require 5-10 hours of continuing education
per year. For center personnel, the highest number of states (25) require 5-1 9 hours per year. Few states
have listed annual training requirements for center directors.
Table 10.
CONllNUlNG EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
Source of Data: The Children's Foundation, 1991 Day Care Center Licensing Study; Children's Defense Fund, Who Knows How Safe, 1990; and
State licensing regulations.
The information provided on the table includes small and large day care homes and in some cases may require only the provider rather than
all personnel in the home to meet the requirements. For specific information related to training requirements, refer to the footnote for the identified
state.
Maine. Provider must supply orientation for aides and assistants.
Michigan. Required orientation is for Family Day Care Providers only.
Montana. Large Family Day Care - required to attend orientation within 60 days of certification.
Pennsylvania. Applies to Large Family Day Care Homes.
Texas. Family Day Care - 6 hours required.
Washington. Family Day Care - 5 hours required.
Arizona. ADHS requires the applicant for center licensure to complete orientation for new owners and directors of child day care centers within
4 months from the submission date of a licensure application.
Minnesota. Orientation required for teacher aides.
Note: States listed have indicated that they do require the listed training. States not included may require the listed training, but did not specify this
in the Children's Foundation Survey.
TYPE OF TRAINING
Required Orientation
Child Care Center
Directors
AZ8,TN,WI
(3)
Day Care Home Caregivers'
AZ,CA,DE,LA,MA,ME2,MD,
MI3, MT4, NY, OR, PA5, TN,
W, UT, VT, WA7
(1 7)
Other Direct Care
Center Staff
AL, FL, LA, MNg, TN, VI, WI
(7)
Table 10. (continued)
CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
loT he information provided on the table includes small and large day care homes and in some cases may require only the provider rather than
all personnel in the home to meet the requirements. For specific information related to training requirements, refer to the footnote for the identlied
state.
l1 States which require child care centers to have at least one caregiver on duty at all times during hours of operation with first aid only:
Connecticut, Hawaii, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia. States which require one staff member to be trained in first aid and CPR
include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas and Utah.
l2 Georgia. For Large Day Care Homes, first aid and CPR are required. For Family Day Care, only first aid is required.
l3T exas. Registered providers - first aid and CPR (infants and toddlers) only.
l4 Washington. Includes HIVIAIDS training.
l5 California. CPR and first aid required for all centers which care for mildly ill children.
TYPE OF TRAINING
First Aidt1
(States may require as
preservice or ongoing training
requirement)
Child Care Center
Directors
IA, MA, OK
(3)
Day Care Home Caregiversl"
AZ(DHS), AK, CO, CT, DC,
GA1*, IN, MA, ME, MI, MN, NE,
NH, NJ, NM, OH, PA,TX13,
WA14, WY
(20)
Other Direct Care
Center Staff
CA15, DC, GA, IA, IN, KS, LA,
MA, MN, MS, MT, NE, NM, NV,
OH, OK, SD, UT, WA, WV, WY
(21
Table 10. (continued)
CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
-
le The information provided on the table includes small and large day care homes and in some cases may require only the provider rather than
all personnel in the home to meet the requirements. For specific information related to training requirements, refer to the footnote for the identified
state.
l7S tates which require centers to have at least Ic aregiver on duty at all times during hours of operation with CPR training or certification include:
Massachusetts and Minnesota. States requiring a caregiver on duty at all times with first aid and CPR training or certification include: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and
Utah.
l8 Georgia. For Large Day Care Homes, first aid and CPR are required. For Family Day Care only first aid is required.
l9 North Dakota. Required CPR for supervisor only.
Texas. Registered providers - first aid and CPR (infants and toddlers) only.
2' California. CPR and first aid required for all centers which care for mildly ill children.
TYPE OF TRAINING
CPR Training or Certification17
Day Care Home Caregivers1'
AZ(DHS), AK, CO, CT, GA1',
MA, ME, MI, NC, NE, NDlg, NH,
P, WA, WY
(1 5)
Child Care Center
Directors
Other Direct Care
Center Staff
CA2', DC, GA, IN, KS, LA, MS,
MT, NE, NM, SD, UT, WA, WY,
(1 4)
Table 10. (continued)
CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
22 The information provided on the table includes small and large day care homes and in some cases may require only the provider rather than
all personnel in the home to meet the requirements. For specific information related to training requirements, refer to the footnote for the identified
state.
23 Massachusetts. Effective September 1, 1993, at the time of renewal, Family Day Care providers shall submit evidence of having completed
within the past 3 years, at least 15 hours of training, approved by the Office of Children and relevant to caring for young children.
24 Oregon. Family Day Care - no requirements; Large Family Day Care - 15 hours annually.
25 Virginia. The provider is invited to 6 training sessions per year; hours unspecified.
TYPE OF TRAINING
No Continuing Education
Requirements
(other than first aid and/or CPR)
Day Care Home Caregivers"
AK, AZ(DES), DC, GA, HI, ID, IL,
IN, MAz3, MS, MT, NH, OK,
ORZ~S, C, SD, vlZ5W, A
(1 8)
Child Care Center
Directors
AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DC,
DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY,
LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS,
MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM,
NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD,
UT, VI, VT, WA, WV, WY
(44)
Other Direct Care
Center Staff
CAI CO, HI, ID, MI, MT, NH, NJ,
SC
(9)
Table 10. (continued)
CONnNUlNG EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
2e The information provided on the table includes small and large day care homes and in some cases may require only the provider rather than
all personnel in the home to meet the requirements. For specific information related to training requirements, refer to the footnote for the identified
state.
27 Connecticut. For Large Day Care Homes, the requirement is 1 staff development activity per year; hours unspecified.
28 West Virginia. Specific guidelines in developmental process, at minimum healh and safety, are mandated for block grant providers.
Louisiana. Training required quarterly for direct care personnel; hours unspecified.
Minnesota. Training requirement for direct care personnel is 2% of hours employed.
31 North Carolina. Annual requirement; hours vary with education and experience.
32 New York. Annual requirement; hours unspecified.
33 Rhode Island. Annual requirement; hours unspecified.
34 Washington. Annual requirement; hours unspecified.
35 West Virginia. Annual requirement; hours unspecified.
TYPE OF TRAINING
Unspecified Continuing
Education Requirement
(ContentIAmount) (8)
Day Care Home Caregivers2'
CF7, LA, MD, W8
Child Care Center
Directors
Other Direct Care
Center Staff
DC, LAm, MNW, NC3',
NP, RP3, WA34, WV3
Table 10. (continued)
CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
The information provided on the table includes small and large day care homes and in some cases may require only the provider rather than
all personnel in the home to meet the requirements. For specific information related to training requirements, refer to the footnote for the identified
state.
37 Alabama. Training requirement is 4 hours every 2 years.
38 Iowa. Training requirement is 2 hours every 5 years in child abuse identification and reporting.
39 Tennessee. Family Day Care - 4 hours annually; Large Day Care Homes - 8 hours annually.
TYPE OF TRAINING
0-4 Hours Per Year or as
Specified
Day Care Home Caregiversm
AL3', IA38, NJ, NV, TN3'
(5)