View Comment

< Back to comment page

The table below shows comments received at this web site about the following rule:

New Licensing Rules
Program administration sections of aligned licensing rules that will replace current center and family home child care rules, chapters 170-295 and 170-296A. Weights that appear with the rules are only informational ... there is more work to be done before weights are finalized.

DEL uses these comments, and other input during the rule making process, to help us write and adopt the permanent rules. For proposed rules only, DEL will prepare one response to all of the comments received, in what is called a “concise explanatory statement” required by RCW 34.05.325. The department sends the concise explanatory statement to everyone who commented or testified on the proposed rule, and to anyone who asks for it.

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: Overall, I oppose the draft version of the standards alignment for the following reasons: They are unduly burdensome, They are difficult to navigate, They stifle cultural and economic equity, They may push providers and members of the current workforce who have proven competency via Early Achievers or other assessment systems out of the field because of the set professional development requirements without a clear equivalency pathway, The economic impact (particularly true of the standards related to professional qualifications, furniture and facilities) will inevitably raise the cost of care to Washington families without a clear route to how the standards improve child outcomes. Combined, these factors threaten to push early learning sites out of the field at a time when many areas are already struggling with a shortage of early learning programs. The providers most impacted by these pressures are those serving low-income and diverse populations who already operate on thin margins with extremely limited resources. We do not need someone to regulate our every move. We know how to run our own businesses.

Date Submitted: 6/27/2018 9:40:46 PM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND OVERSIGHT LICENSING PROCESS WAC 170-300-0440 Facility licensing compliance agreements, nonreferral status, probationary license, and provider rights. (3) An early learning provider may request an internal review process regarding the violation of department rules pursuant to RCW 43.216.395. Weight #1 Why does requesting a review incur a one point penalty? How can excessing a right to review harm a child? Is this a penalty point! WAC 170-300-0470 Emergency preparedness plan. (4)(d)(iv) Notes about how the drill went and how it may be improved. Does this include fire drills? Currently is only for the quarterly emergency drills. 12 entries about fire dills will be very monotonous.

Date Submitted: 6/27/2018 9:00:23 PM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: Overall, I oppose the draft version of the standards alignment for the following reasons: • They are unduly burdensome, • They are difficult to navigate, • They stifle cultural and economic equity, • They may push providers and members of the current workforce who have proven competency via Early Achievers or other assessment systems out of the field because of the set professional development requirements without a clear equivalency pathway, • The economic impact (particularly true of the standards related to professional qualifications, furniture and facilities) will inevitably raise the cost of care to Washington families without a clear route to how the standards improve child outcomes. Combined, these factors threaten to push early learning sites out of the field at a time when many areas are already struggling with a shortage of early learning programs. The providers most impacted by these pressures are those serving low-income and diverse populations who already operate on thin margins with extremely limited resources.

Date Submitted: 6/27/2018 6:34:37 PM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: 170-300-0420 (2) (f) Post "no smoking or vaping" signs at entrance. This is not appropriate for all settings. Yes for public area with other businesses and foot traffic. Not on private garden like property that only serves our preschool/childcare where our clientele wouldn't think of smoking of vaping on our property. No one has smoked or vaped on premises for over 10 years. Better to recommend signage to address the problem of smoking or vaping on premises if it is an issue.

Date Submitted: 6/27/2018 4:51:47 PM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: The requirement for Dental care provider is unrealistic esp. for infants. What about parent's who don't have dental coverage? Transporting in a vehicle: Instead of emergency reflective triangle, can four way vehicle emergency flashers be okay? A safe driving record for at least 5 years is way too long and how do you tell a parent they can't drive on a field trip without seeing their driving record? That's very intrusive. What is someone has only had their license for 2 years, are they excluded from driving? What is a safe driving record?

Date Submitted: 6/26/2018 9:43:13 AM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: No other industry is subject to this level of micromanagement by a government agency. I believe it is discrimination based on the majority of providers being women and women of color. The mindset is providers are not equal to government workers in education, competence, life experience, social status, knowledge of child development and health concerns, and adherence to social norms.

Date Submitted: 6/26/2018 9:27:41 AM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: Family in-home childcare it's our home. You can't restrict what a private citizen does in their home during non-business hours if it is legal to do so. This is over reaching. We also can't control what people do prior to picking up their children. We can't prohibit them from being under the influence of alcohol or drugs when they drop off or pick up. If a provider uses her whole house then she can't store cannabis out of licensed space. This should be treated as medication and be locked up.

Date Submitted: 6/26/2018 9:17:57 AM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: The 2 week time frame for operating after a move is if the department can do the inspection in that time frame. There should be an extension if the inspection can't be made by the department in that time frame. Provider's would loose income and clients if they had to close until the inspection can be made.

Date Submitted: 6/26/2018 9:07:59 AM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: How did we get from licensing and certifying for the health and safely of children in out of home care to "foundational standards" with an incredible increase in the direct costs, administration, and bureaucracy of child care? This is such a regulatory overreach and an attempt to alter reality for families who are simply trying to have their children taken care of by loving, responsible providers at a cost they can afford. The state wanting to build a system and expand its prestige doesn't change the economic realities of parenthood.

Date Submitted: 6/25/2018 4:53:50 PM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: WAC 170-300-0500: Health Policy. The final draft language of this WAC omits the existing requirement of WAC 170-295-3010 1 (d) that qualified health care professionals review and sign health policies for child care setting. The current rule better aligns with the best practice recommendations set by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Public Health Association. It should not be changed. Rational (including references) to support reviewing and signing health policies by qualified health care professionals follows: • Consultation by a qualified health care professional is associated with a decrease in diarrheal and respiratory illness, which lowers the numbers of sick days taken by children and their families. (American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education. 2011. Caring for our children: National health and safety performance standards; Guidelines for early care and education programs. 3rd Edition. Elk Grove Village, IL.) • The requirement that a health care provider sign the policy increases the opportunities for a health and safety professional to observe potential hazards in the child care environment. (Carabin et al. Effectiveness of a Training Program in Reducing Infections in Toddlers Attending Day Care centers. Epidemiology. 1999; 10:3 219-227) • Consultation and policy review by a qualified health care professional has been associated with improved practice in areas such as sanitizing and disinfecting, handwashing, safe medication management, nutrition practices, safe chemical storage, and development of care plans for children with special health care needs. Johnston R, Delconte B, Ungvary L. et al. (Caring for Our Children Health and Safety Standards into Child Care Practice: Child Care Health Consultation Improves Infant and Toddler Care. Journal of Pediatric Health. 2017; 31(6):684-694) Thank you for your consideration

Date Submitted: 6/22/2018 11:18:24 AM

Agree/Disagree: Agree

Comment: As long as the changes have the children's bets interest in mind with no additional costs to centers or family day care homes without increases to subsidies.

Date Submitted: 6/21/2018 2:55:18 PM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: 0401 License fees - If we are aligning centers and homes then why is the annual fee for a home child care for up to 12 children $30/annually and a Center is $125 for the first 12 children. I am a home provider so that is great for me but certainly unfair to the center. 0420 - Prohibited substance 2(a) Prohibit smoking in licensed indoor space, even during nonbusiness hours. I am not a smoker but I resent that you think you can tell me what to do in my home during nonbusiness hours. 0455 A child may be in care up to a maximum of ten hours each day. If needed, the maximum time may be extended. Why have the regulation if it can be extended. This seems baseless to me.

Date Submitted: 6/21/2018 10:17:00 AM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: WAC 0486 Expulsion. We have the right to refuse service to anyone just like the local restaurant. Two things will happen if DEL insists on this WAC. First, the month before the WAC takes place, there will be many expulsions. Providers who have been working with parents on a behavior will just throw in the towel early so they don't have to jump through this one more hoop. Second, expulsions will continue. Providers will just not address the "behavior" with the parents, and when they've had enough, they will terminate the parent instead - for something as simple as being 2 minutes late. Meanwhile, the child looses because the provider won't want to openly address any behaviors for fear of being entangled in this WAC. The children are the losers here

Date Submitted: 6/21/2018 9:23:59 AM

Agree/Disagree: Agree

Comment: If the program has access to a child care health consultant, that consultant should review and sign their health policy. For those programs who do not care for infants, the health policy review is often the only time they get any licensed health professional input into their systems. It serves as an excellent time to talk about the areas where they are most likely to have challenges: cleaning/sanitizing/disinfecting; medication administration; safety.

Date Submitted: 6/19/2018 10:17:44 AM

Agree/Disagree: Neutral

Comment: 170-300-0440 Facility Licensing Compliance Agreements, non-referral status, probationary license, and provider rights. (5)If an early learning provider refuses a FLCA or probationary license, this may result in any of the following enforcement actions: modification, non continuation of a nonexpiring license, suspension, revocation, civil penalties. This element should also include denial.

Date Submitted: 6/18/2018 8:34:28 AM

Agree/Disagree: Neutral

Comment: The rules contain a detailed definition of a 'Safety Plan', but I was not able to locate any other use of this term beyond 170-300-0465 Retaining facility and program records. (5)(u). There should be a rule that describes that a safety plan that has been developed collaboratively with the ELP and approved by the department must be followed.

Date Submitted: 6/18/2018 8:30:58 AM

Agree/Disagree: Neutral

Comment: 170-300-0435 and 170-300-0436 describe waiver and variance from department rule. section (4) for each of these rules describe they remain in effect for as long as the early learning provider continues to comply with the conditions of the variance. My suggestion would be these waivers and variances should have a sunset provision and be in effect only until the next revision of the rule in question. I recognize that some revisions are minimal, but some certainly are not, so it may be wise to review all waiver or variances affected by any rule change.

Date Submitted: 6/14/2018 9:10:31 AM

Agree/Disagree: Neutral

Comment: 170-300-0400 (1)(b) describes materials needed to be submitted to have a completed application. The language as written is fine in most circumstances, with the exception of family home moves. Family homes are allowed to operate on the old license for two weeks by statute, but would then need a new license. A new license begins with a completed application. Some of the facility information noted under (1)(b) may be difficult for the occupant of a new residence to have within 2 short weeks including (iv)(v), and (vi) for water and/or lead testing. My suggestion would be to add language to allow a ELP with a FH license to move and submit this documentation within a specific time period, such as within 30, 45, or 60 days. This would allow an application to be considered 'complete' and work to begin processing.

Date Submitted: 6/14/2018 8:59:34 AM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: P. 221 WAC 170-300-0460 Child records • 1b. Request variance as we are required to follow district policy and procedure for request of records. • 2c. what would alternate emergency contact plan include if the parent does not have emergency contacts? • 2e. How is a plan for special or individual needs of child different than an IEP, 504 or health plan? Also, an individual learning plan is developed for all students. • 2h. Restraint is often the result of an unexpected action, in which case requiring a plan of approval from a parent prior to the use of restraint for a specific student, is not possible. If notification via the parent handbook and the parent signing off on receiving and understanding the handbook is acceptable documentation of approval for restraint plan, then we would be covered, as our parent handbook describes when restraint may be necessary as a last resort and the action steps taken before and after. • 4h. We use the district forms and procedures for all incident, injury, etc. reporting P. 225 WAC 170-300-0470 Emergency preparedness plan • As a part of the school district, we are required to use their established and extensive emergency operations plan. This plan addresses all schools, not just our specific early learning program. • 1c. In the event of an emergency with ECEAP staff, site teams provide support for one another and then also use the school and district personnel as back-up and support. • 3. Will check with district on this requirement, I believe this already occurs. • 4. We follow district procedures for drills, etc. and while we will work next year on ensuring consistency for our classrooms (ie: drills not on Friday), alignment and coordination with the schools is critical since they would be the support if there were an emergency at the school. Forms used to document drills, etc. are district forms that meet OSPI requirements. Request variance from using DCYF forms or having to maintain additional documentation of these beyond what the district already maintains. • 5. We are a part of a larger system of a school district. Request waiver on having a separate plan for our ECEAP programs as it is critical for us to comply with and coordinate our efforts with the schools at which our programs are located. P.232 WAC 170-300-0475 Duty to protect children and report incidents 3. Concerns regarding confidentiality of reporting via email or phone (voicemail). P. 233 WAC 170-300-0480 Transportation and off-site activity policy • We use the district policy and procedure that meets OSPI requirements and guidelines for all transportation and field trips. • 2c. What does a “complete” first aid kit entail? • 3a. Transportation in school buses is exempt from child restraint laws/ has different requirements. Consult with OSPI on requirements and provide waiver so transportation can continue to be provided to ECEAP students – a factor that greatly impacts our ability to serve our most vulnerable populations and achieve full enrollment. P.235 WAC 170-300-0485 Termination of services Request waiver. ECEAP cannot comply with this per ECEAP standards that note that we cannot require anything of our parents in order for them to participate in the ECEAP program. P. 236 WAC 170-300-0486 Expulsion policy Request waiver. ECEAP has a clear no expulsion policy. P. 237 WAC 170-300-0490 Child restraint policy 3. What would “training” include? Training on the policy or training on restraint? P.238 WAC 170-300-0500 Health policy • We use district policies and procedures for health services. Would supplement a few as needed. Concerns regarding the required cleaning schedule as that is a significant impact on custodial services. P. 242 WAC 170-300-0505 Postings Request waiver re: 2m - Posting of insurance coverage. Coverage is under the umbrella of district coverage. Not appropriate to post in each classroom when it is for whole district. If access to records is needed, that can be arranged.

Date Submitted: 6/12/2018 12:11:32 PM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: P. 194 WAC 170-300-0401 License fees • Request waiver. It seems like a conflict to charge programs who are operating under state grant funds to be licensed. In addition, feels like a conflict to charge school districts, who are regulated by OSPI, for licensing fees. • If this is required, include payment option by purchase order. • Would half day programs be licensed for 20 (amount of students attending at one time) or 40 (total number of students served per classroom)? P. 195 WAC 170-300-0402 Changing early learning program space or location • Request waiver or variance - Our spaces are maintained by our facilities and maintenance departments per OSPI requirements, local building codes, etc. We as the ECEAP program, don’t always know changes, modification, or improvements being done, therefore notification to DCYF will be challenging. We are such a small program in comparison to the size of the district, that it is unrealistic to expect notification of all projects, etc. when these are meeting requirements, etc. • 3a – We frequently do not have 90 days notice to such changes or moves. • 3b – What will department capacity be to meet tight timelines for turnaround regarding inspections and moves? This could significantly impact our ability to provide services and meet ECEAP standards re: enrollment timelines and meeting required student contact hours if this is required before student attend after a classroom move. P. 197 WAC 170-300-0415 Zoning, codes and ordinances 4 – Our district facilities department handles these. P.198 WAC 170-300-0420 Prohibited substances • 2c – the way this is worded makes it seem like this would also include parent vehicles for self-transport children. • 2e – would like to see posting requirement aligned with school postings which say something like “Drug free zone” Expand posting requirement to say Drug, alcohol, smoking and vaping free zone” or something similar and ALIGNED to school district posting requirements. • Will signs be provided or a template available? • Will variances be accepted to allow for programs in school districts to use the same posting that is consistent with elementary and school postings? P. 201 WAC 170-300-0425 Initial, non-expiring, dual licenses and license modification 3b.iii – Often changes to dates and hours are not known until September due to contract negotiations that determine the school calendar. Changes also have to be made when weather conditions cause school closures. 3c. Will all background checks be expected to be on the same schedule? Will those expiring within the year be required to renew before license/certification renewal? 9b.v – Reporting changes in program hours and closures within 24 hours may not be possible for weather related closures. When schools are closed, staff are also not working. Determination of make-up days is usually not made until the threat for additional closures has passed. 11. This is completed by the school district, not ECEAP program staff. P. 206 WAC 170-300-0435 Waiver from department rules – WAC 4. Would waivers be in jeopardy as the department changes and updates these WACs? P. 207 WAC 170-300-0436 Variance from department rules – WAC 3b. What will the timeline be from application to approval? P. 208 WAC 170-300-0440 Facility licensing compliance agreements… 1b. Will these replace contract compliance actions plans or be in addition to? 4e. What will these civil penalties include? How does this whole section look for certification? 7. Who will technical assistance be provided by? Will this be aligned with technical assistance already provided by our ECEAP contractor? 8. Will a probationary certification be something used with school districts? 10. What constitutes “readily available” records? Due to storage and archival space, older records are retained at an off-site facility, but could be accessed within the same day if requested. P. 212 WAC 170-300-0443 Enforcement actions, notice and appeal Can districts be fined? It seems like a conflict to fine programs who are operating under state grant funds. In addition, feels like a conflict to charge school districts, who are regulated by OSPI, for fines. P. 215 WAC 170-300-0450 Parent or guardian handbook and related policies Questions regarding what would be included for the following policies: • 2b – family engagement and partnership communication plan (what in addition to ECEAP family support work and parent-teacher contact, would be included?) Would ECEAP standards addressing FSS and parent-teacher contact be sufficient? • 2h.i – care for children with specific or special needs – what would this include beyond students IEP, health plan, etc.? • 2v.iii – consistent care plan – what would this include? P. 218 WAC 170-300-0455 Attendance records • Would records be required on site for currently enrolled students? Students from the current program year? • In ECEAP, staff initial in students who arrive by bus. Request variance regarding a signature being required as at some site 75-80% of student arrive by bus, which would take a significant amount of time for staff to put their signature to sign in every student, which diverts their attention from student interactions and supervision. Allow for initials or a simple “bus” notation. • An example of staff attendance would be helpful. The start and end times for staff members are the same each day and are padded with prep time before and after students arrive/leave. There is no check-in/check-out procedure required by our HR department or union contract. Request variance.

Date Submitted: 6/12/2018 12:11:12 PM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: WAC 0500 Health Policy. DEL has to review AND APPROVE my health policy when "changes are made, and as otherwise necessary"? Why? No other business is regulated like child care. This is complete over-regulation.

Date Submitted: 6/12/2018 11:31:40 AM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: Not sure where this comment goes but if you don't give us time to hire and allow teachers to work supervised until their criminal history is cleared, that will kill us. Its extremely hard to maintain ratios already with people on sick leave so please don't make it harder!

Date Submitted: 6/8/2018 3:55:16 PM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: Family Home Childcares are VERY different than centers. Please let the parents choose. The rules need to be different.

Date Submitted: 6/7/2018 8:47:30 PM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: 0400 Application materials (1)(a)(viii) Requires a copy of a Social Security number or a sworn statement of the applicant does not have one (ix) Employer identification Number (EIN) if applicant plans on hiring staff. This suggestion to improve this WAC primarily affects Home Providers. There needs to be a section on the application where it is explained a SSPS- Social Service Provider Service number will be listed on the license and used to authorize subsidy payments. It needs to be explained in the application this SSPS# will be requested and shared with another state agency not DEL. The applicant should be given the option to provide a EIN even if they are not planning to hire staff to be used to request the SSPS #. Applicants should have a a statement added to the application they are aware based on their choice/decision they read and sign on the application that their Social Security # or EIN will be shared outside of the Department of Early Learning/DCYF.

Date Submitted: 5/24/2018 10:06:16 PM

Agree/Disagree: Disagree

Comment: Posting "No Smoking" and "No Vaping" signs is ridiculous. Centers already need to post so many things and communicate them to parents. Should we also post "No drinking alcohol" signs?

Date Submitted: 5/24/2018 4:44:36 PM

Agree/Disagree: Neutral

Comment: 0410 License and program location 0410: Is there anything in this WAC that WOULD NOT allow a Medical Marijuana Cooperative on the premises of a licensed Family Child Care ? Medical Marijuana Cooperatives can:Form a four member cooperative, *Grow up to the total number of plants authorized,with a maximum of 60 plants,•Limited to one cooperative per tax parcel. Medical Marijuana cannot be located near daycare centers but the WAC concerning Medical Marijuana Cooperatives does not mention Licensed Family Child Care Premises.

Date Submitted: 5/23/2018 9:40:53 PM

Agree/Disagree: Neutral

Comment: please make it easier for FAMILY CHILD CAre---- this 100% different than centers

Date Submitted: 5/18/2018 2:15:06 PM

Your comments will become part of the public record for this rule. DEL reserves the right not to post any comment for public view that contains offensive content.