Existing law, the Child Care and Development Services Act, requires the State Department of Education to contract with local contracting agencies for alternative payment programs that are intended to allow for maximum parental choice in child care.

This bill would require the department to establish a 2-step appeals process for parents who receive child care subsidies, as specified, and a 2-step appeals process for family child care providers who receive child care subsidy payments, provide that a licensed or license-exempt child care provider who receives payment through a designated alternative payment program may file a complaint, alleging that the alternative payment program has not complied with federal or state law or regulation, pursuant to the Uniform Complaint Procedures in the California Code of Regulations, as specified.

Existing law, the Child Care and Development Services Act, requires the State Department of Education to contract with local contracting agencies for alternative payment programs that are intended to allow for maximum parental choice in child care.

This bill would require the department to establish a 2-step appeals process for parents who receive child care subsidies, as specified, and a 2-step appeals process for family child care providers who receive child care subsidy payments, as specified.

Existing law, the Child Care and Development Services Act, requires the State Department of Education to contract with local contracting agencies for alternative payment programs that are intended to allow for maximum parental choice in child care.

This bill would require the department to establish an a 2-step appeals process for parents who receive child care subsidies subsidies, as specified, and a 2-step appeals process for family child care providers who receive child care subsidy payments, as specified.

Existing law establishes the California State University and its various campuses under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change in a provision relating to the trustees.

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2133

Author:(Chu)

As Amended Ver:May 31, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Authorizes a licensed or license-exempt child care provider who receives payment through the alternative payment program (APP) to file a complaint, alleging that an APP has not complied with federal or state law or regulations, through the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP). Specifies that APPs are operated by contractors reimbursed through the California Alternative Payment Program, the CalWORKs Stage 2 Program, the CalWORKs Stage 3 Program, and the Migrant Alternative Payment Program. Specifies that the operation of this bill is contingent upon the enactment of an appropriation for this purpose in the annual Budget Act or another statute.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, unknown General Fund administrative costs to the California Department of Education (CDE) to process complaints under the UCP. To date, no providers have brought complaints through the existing UCP process. This bill may highlight the process and generate use of the UCP. The CDE indicates they will need additional resources to review, investigate and process appeals or complaints, perhaps in excess of $600,000, depending on the number of complaints received.

COMMENTS: Background on child care and development programs. The CDE administers a child care and development system, maintaining over 1,300 service contracts with approximately 750 public and private agencies supporting and providing services to children from birth through 12 years of age. Contractors include school districts, county offices of education, cities, colleges, other public entities, community-based organizations, and private agencies. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, overall funding for the child care and development programs decreased by almost $1 billion between 2008-09 and 2012-13, with the elimination of 110,000 slots. The combined federal and state funding for child care and development programs total $3.6 billion (state funds of $2.7 billion and federal funds of $938 million), offering 436,185 slots.

APPs. APPs, funded with state and federal funds, offer a variety of child care arrangements for parents, including licensed family child care homes and center-based care, and arrange for payments to licensed-exempt providers, who are relatives or friends of parents or guardians. The APP helps families access child care services and makes payment for those services directly to the child care provider selected by the family. The APP is intended to increase parental choice and accommodate the individual needs of the family. APPs are reimbursed based on the number of children served and funds are appropriated based on the fiscal reporting process and budget estimations. In 2015-16, there were 75 APPs throughout the state and they range from private, nonprofit organizations to county offices of education. APPs began as pilot programs in 1977 and became permanent in 1980.

Earlier versions of this bill codified a parent appeals process established through Title 5 California Code of Regulations and would have established a similar appeals process for child care providers. Amendments adopted in the Assembly Appropriations Committee struck the contents of the bill and instead authorizes child care providers to file complaints through the UCP.

UCP. Required by federal law, the UCP was established in 1991 as a means of creating a "uniform system of complaint processing" for educational programs. The authority for this process is located in regulations, not state statute.

These regulations require the adoption of the UCP by school districts, county offices of education, charter schools receiving federal funds, and local public or private agencies which receive direct or indirect state funding to provide school programs or special education or related services. The UCP is used for complaints regarding a number of state and federal programs, including Adult Education, After School Education and Safety, Agricultural Vocational Education, American Indian Education Centers and Early Childhood Education Program Assessments, Child Care and Development, Child Nutrition, Foster Youth Services, some federal No Child Left Behind Act (2001) programs, Regional Occupational Centers and Programs, Special Education, State Preschool, and Tobacco-Use Prevention Education.

Complaints made under the UCP may be filed by an individual, public agency, or organization. The UCP process generally involves the following steps:

1. The filing of a complaint by an individual, agency, or organization.
2. The investigation and written response by the local educational agency (LEA) within 60 days.
3. If elected, an appeal by the complainant to the CDE within 15 days of receiving the LEA response.
4. The response by the CDE to the appeal, with the investigation completed with 60 days.
5. If eligible and elected, a request for reconsideration by the complainant or LEA within 35 days of receiving CDE's response to the appeal.
6. A response by the CDE within 35 days.

As noted, child care and development programs are already authorized to file complaints through the UCP. It is unclear whether language making the enactment of this bill contingent upon a budget appropriation would affect the authority already provided through state regulations.

The sponsor, the Service Employees International Union, made this statement about why child care providers need an avenue for recourse, "Existing law lacks a uniform policy for resolving disputes around child care payments. Errors in payments can cause problems for both parents and providers and can eligible children without care. Currently there is an ineffective complaints procedure at the Department of Education for parents. This is no such procedure for providers. … AB 2133 does not propose to penalize an alternative payment program if the appellant's position was upheld. It is more about changing how the alternative payment program operates and relates to providers."

Analysis Prepared by: Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0003296

Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2133

Author:(Chu) – As Amended Ver:April 12, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to establish parallel appeal processes for parents and providers of child care and development programs. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires CDE to establish a two-step appeals process for parents, first through the Alternative Payment Program (APP) and second within the Early Education and Support Division (EESD) at the CDE. The decision made by CDE is final.
2. Requires contractors to notify parents of their right to appeal any time a notice of action (NOA) is sent to the parent. Sets forth reasons for providing an NOA, including an increase or decrease in parent fees, the amount of services, termination of services, or a violation of parental choice.
3. Requires the NOA to be provided at least 14 calendar days before the effective date of intended action.  If the parent disagrees with an action, the parent can request a hearing with the contractor within 30 days of the date the NOA was received. Upon filing for a hearing, the intended action is suspended until the review process is completed or when the parent abandons the appeal process.
4. Sets forth hearing notification and hearing process requirements, including, requirements that parents attend the hearing, the availability of an interpreter if necessary, and required explanation of legal, regulatory and policy rationale for the intended action. Requires the "hearing officer" (APP administrative staff) to provide a written decision to the parent within 10 calendar days after the hearing.
5. Authorizes the parent to appeal this written decision to the EESD of the CDE within 30 days. Sets forth an appeals process under the EESD. Requires the EESD to provide a decision within 30 days of the appeal request. Requires the contractor to comply with the decision of the EESD immediately upon receipt of that decision. If the decision is termination of services, requires the contractor to notify the parent and provider of this decision.
6. Requires the contractor to be reimbursed for child care and development services that are delivered to a family during the appeal process.
7. Establishes a similar appeals process for licensed and licensed-exempt family child care providers who receive subsidy payments through an APP.
8. Specifies appealable rights for providers, including, but not limited to: a) lack of notification of change in the status of parents’ eligibility for care; b) accurate payments for services rendered; c) and timeliness of payments.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Ongoing General Fund administrative costs to CDE of approximately $266,000 to implement a provider appeal process.  CDE currently has four positions dedicated to the existing parent appeals process; therefore no additional resources are needed for this activity. The APPs will also incur costs associated with conducting appeals hearings and processing outcomes.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill, sponsored by the United Domestic Workers/AFSCME Local 3930 and Service Employees International Union (SEIU), provides an administrative remedy for parents and child care providers who have reason to believe a decision made by an APP is incorrect. Although an appeals process for parents is authorized through regulations, the sponsors want the process established in statute along with a parallel process for both licensed providers (center based) and license-exempt providers (family or friends).
2. Background. The CDE administers a child care and development system, maintaining over 1,300 service contracts with approximately 750 public and private agencies supporting and providing services to children from birth through 12 years of age. Contractors include school districts, county offices of education, cities, colleges, other public entities, community-based organizations, and private agencies. The combined federal and state funding for child care and development programs total $3.6 billion (state funds of $2.7 billion and federal funds of $938 million) and fund 436,185 slots.

APPs were established in the 1970s to help provide parent choice and access to childcare. In 2015-16, there were 75 APPs throughout the state. APPs administer vouchers and case manage the families in CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3. These administrative agencies process the payments, insure compliance from providers, and assist families in finding the right child care for their children. They receive state and federal funding and are reimbursed based on the number of children served. APPs can charge up to 17.5 percent of the total contract for these services. This rate was reduced from 19 percent in the 2010-11 budget as a cost saving tool.

1. Comments. Concerns have been raised around the 30 day timeline for appeals. Existing regulations for the parent appeals allows an appeal 14 days from receipt of an NOA. If all of the timelines in the bill run consecutively, the process could take 125 days from beginning to end. During this time, a family served with an NOA of ineligibility could be taking a spot that another eligible child could be waiting to access. Staff recommends reviewing the dates in the bill to ensure a timely process.

Concerns have also been raised around appealable issues from the provider and whether the APP or CDE have the authority to remedy certain complaints, such as licensure issues or employee/employer concerns. APPs are not employers of child care providers, families are their clients and the APPs connect families to child care services. The author may wish to clarify intent and limit appeals permitted under the process.

Analysis Prepared by: Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2133 (

Author:Chu) – As Amended Ver:April 12, 2016

SUBJECT: Child care: alternative payment programs: appeals process

SUMMARY: Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to establish parallel appeals processes for parents and providers of child care and development programs. Specifically, this bill:

Appeals process for parents:

1. Requires the CDE to establish a two-step appeals process for parents who receive subsidies that includes a first step within the alternative payment program (APP) agency with the hearing officer being an administrative employee other than the employee who made the decision that is being appealed, and a second step within the Early Education and Support Division (EESD) of the CDE. Specifies that the CDE's decision shall be final.
2. Requires the contractor, through the notice of action (NOA), to notify the parent of his or her appeal rights any time a NOA is sent to the parent. Specifies that a “contractor” means the local contracting agency that has entered into an agreement with the CDE for an APP.
3. Requires the contractor to complete a NOA if the application for services is approved, or when changes are made to the service agreement. These changes may include, but are not necessarily limited to, an increase or decrease in parent fees, an increase or decrease in the amount of services or termination of services, or a violation of parental choice.
4. Requires the contractor to mail or deliver the NOA to the parent at least 14 calendar days before the effective date of the intended action.
5. Authorizes the parent to file a request for a hearing with the contractor within 30 calendar days of the date the NOA was received if the parent disagrees with an action.
6. Specifies that upon the filing of a request for hearing, the intended action shall be suspended until the review process has been completed. The review process is complete when the appeal process has been exhausted, including the second step at the CDE, or when the parent abandons the appeal process.
7. Specifies that within 10 calendar days following the receipt of the request for a hearing, the contractor shall notify the parent of the time and place of the hearing. The time and place of the hearing shall, to the extent possible, be convenient for the parent and shall be held no later than 14 calendar days after the date when the notice of hearing was sent to the parent.
8. Requires the hearing to be conducted by an administrative staff person who shall be referred to as “the hearing officer.” The hearing officer shall be at a staff level higher in authority than the staff person who made the contested decision.
9. Requires the parent, or the parent’s representative of his or her choosing, to attend the hearing. If the parent or the parent’s representative fails to appear at the hearing, the parent shall be deemed to have abandoned the appeal.
10. Requires the contractor to arrange for the presence of an interpreter at the hearing if one is requested by the parent.
11. Requires the hearing officer to explain to the parent the legal, regulatory, or policy basis for the intended action.
12. Specifies that during the hearing, the parent shall have an opportunity to explain the reason or reasons he or she believes that the contractor’s decision was incorrect. The contractor’s staff shall present any material facts they believe were omitted by the parent.
13. Requires the hearing officer to mail or deliver to the parent a written decision within 10 calendar days after the hearing.
14. Specifies that if the parent is receiving Stage 1 CalWORKs child care funding, the appeals process applicable to the CalWORKs program pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall apply.
15. Gives the parent 30 calendar days in which to appeal to the EESD if the parent disagrees with the written decision from the contractor.
16. Specifies that if the parent does not submit an appeal request to the EESD within 30 calendar days, the parent’s appeal process shall be deemed abandoned and the contractor may implement the intended action.
17. Requires the parent to specify in the appeal request the reason or reasons why he or she believes the contractor’s decision is incorrect.
18. Requires the EESD to request copies of the basic data file including the intended NOA and the contractor’s written decision and other relevant materials from the contractor. Authorizes the EESD to conduct any investigations, interviews, or mediation necessary to resolve the appeal.
19. Specifies that the decision of the EESD shall be mailed or delivered to the parent and the contractor within 30 calendar days after receipt of the appeal request.
20. Requires the contractor to comply with the decision of the EESD immediately upon receipt of that decision.
21. Requires the contractor to be reimbursed for child care and development services that are delivered to a family during the appeal process.
22. Specifies that if a contractor’s determination that a family is ineligible is upheld by the EESD, services to the family shall cease upon receipt of the Child Development Division’s decision by the contractor. If such a decision is made, the contractor shall notify the affected provider and parent of that decision.

Appeals Process for Providers:

1. Requires the CDE to establish a two-step appeals process for licensed and license-exempt family child care providers who receive subsidy payments through an APP. The first step shall be within the APP agency with the hearing officer being an administrative employee other than the employee who made the decision that is being appealed, and a second step within the EESD. Requires the CDE's decision to be final.
2. Requires the contractor, through the certificate that authorizes the provider to care for a child in the subsidy program, to notify the provider of his or her appeal rights. Specifies that appealable issues may include, but are not necessarily limited to, lack of notification of change in the status of parents’ eligibility for care, accurate payments for services rendered, and timeliness of payments for services rendered if submitted timesheets are complete and have met the timeframes in the contractor’s schedule of timesheet submissions. Defines “contractor” as the local contracting agency that has entered into an agreement with the APP for an APP.
3. Requires the contractor, through the certificate of authorization for care, to initially notify the provider of the terms and conditions of services to a parent and his or her children and any changes thereafter. Requires the contractor to mail or deliver the notice of changes to the provider at least 14 calendar days before the effective date of the intended change. If the provider disagrees with an action, the provider may file a request for a hearing with the contractor within 30 calendar days of the date the notice was received by the provider.
4. Specifies that upon the filing of a request for hearing, the intended action shall be suspended until the review process has been completed. The review process is complete when the appeal process has been exhausted, including the second step at the CDE or when the provider abandons the appeal process.
5. Specifies that within 10 calendar days following the receipt of the request for a hearing, the contractor shall notify the provider of the time and place of the hearing. The time and place of the hearing shall, to the extent possible, be convenient for the provider and shall be held no later than 14 calendar days after the date when the notice of hearing was sent to the provider.
6. Requires the hearing to be conducted by an administrative staff person who shall be referred to as “the hearing officer.” The hearing officer shall be at a staff level higher in authority than the staff person who made the contested decision.
7. Specifies that the provider, or the provider’s representative of his or her choosing, is required to attend the hearing. If the provider or the provider’s representative fails to appear at the hearing, the provider shall be deemed to have abandoned the appeal.
8. Requires the contractor to arrange for the presence of an interpreter at the hearing if one is requested by the provider.
9. Requires the hearing officer to explain to the provider the legal, regulatory, or policy basis for the intended action.
10. Specifies that during the hearing, the provider shall have the opportunity to explain the reason or reasons he or she believes that the contractor’s decision is incorrect. The contractor’s staff shall present any material facts that they believe were omitted by the provider.
11. Requires the hearing officer to mail or deliver to the provider a written decision within 10 calendar days after the hearing.
12. Specifies that if the provider disagrees with the written decision from the contractor, the provider has 30 calendar days in which to appeal to the EESD.
13.  Specifies that if the provider does not submit an appeal request to the EESD within 30 calendar days, the provider’s appeal process shall be deemed abandoned and the contractor may implement the intended action.
14. Requires the provider to specify in the appeal request the reason or reasons why he or she believes the contractor’s decision is incorrect.
15. Specifies that upon receipt of a request for appeal, the EESD shall request copies of the basic data file, including the intended NOA and the contractor’s written decision and other relevant materials from the contractor. Authorizes the EESD to also conduct any investigations, interviews, or mediation necessary to resolve the appeal.
16. Requires the decision of the EESD to be mailed or delivered to the provider and the contractor within 30 calendar days after receipt of the appeal request.
17. Requires the contractor to comply with the decision of the EESD immediately upon receipt of that decision.
18. Specifies that the contractor shall be reimbursed for any child care and development services that are delivered by a provider during the appeal process.
19. Specifies that if a contractor’s determination is upheld by the EESD, the intended action proposed by the contractor shall be carried out or upheld. If the appeal is upheld, the contractor shall notify the provider and the parent who was initially affected by the original decision.
20. Specifies that “Early Education and Support Division” means the CDE's Early Education and Support Division.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes eligibility for child care services and child development programs administered by the CDE and requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to adopt rules and regulations on eligibility, enrollment and priority of services needed for implementation (Education Code (EC) Section 8263).
2. Provides that CalWORKs recipients are eligible for three stages of child care services. Stage one child care begins when a recipient first receives CalWORKs aid and is limited to six months. Stage two begins when a recipient's work or work activity is stable and is available for up to two years after a recipient is no longer eligible for CalWORKs aid. Families can maintain child care benefits if it meets income eligibility under stage 3 if there are slots available. (EC Sections 8350-8359.1)
3. Specifies that in order to be eligible for federal and state subsidized child development services, families must meet at least one requirement in each of the following areas:
   1. A family is (A) a current aid recipient, (B) income eligible, (C) homeless or (D) one whose children are recipients of protective services, or whose children have been identified as being abused, neglected, or exploited, or at risk of being abused, neglected, or exploited; and,
   2. A family needs the child care services (A) because the child is identified by a legal, medical, social services agency, or emergency shelter as (i) a recipient of protective services or (ii) being neglected, abused, or exploited, or at risk of neglect, abuse or exploitation, or (B) because the parents are (i) engaged in vocational training leading directly to a recognized trade, paraprofession or profession, (ii) employed or seeking employment, (iii) seeking permanent housing for family stability, or (iv) incapacitated. (EC Section 8263(a))
4. Defines "income eligible" as a family whose adjusted monthly income is at or below 70% of the state median income (SMI), adjusted for family size, and adjusted annually. For the 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 fiscal years, the income eligibility is 70% of the SMI that was in use for the 2007-08 fiscal year, adjusted for family size. (EC Section 8263.1)
5. Authorizes child care and development funds to be used for APPs to allow for maximum parental choice. Requires the CDE to contract with local contracting agencies for APPs. Authorizes alternative payments to be made for services provided in licensed centers and family day care homes, for care provided in the child's home, and for other types of care. (EC Section 8220 et seq.)
6. Specifies that a contracting agency may have its contract or contracts immediately terminated if there is documented evidence of the acts or omissions, and upon review and recommendation of the general counsel of the CDE, for specified acts, including failure of an APP to fully reimburse a significant number of approved child care providers, within 15 calendar days after the date set in the plan for timely payments to child care providers adopted by the contracting agency. (EC Section 8406.7)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Background on child care and development programs. The CDE administers a child care and development system, maintaining over 1,300 service contracts with approximately 750 public and private agencies supporting and providing services to children from birth through 12 years of age. Contractors include school districts, county offices of education, cities, colleges, other public entities, community-based organizations, and private agencies. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, overall funding for the child care and development programs decreased by almost $1 billion between 2008-09 and 2012-13, with the elimination of 110,000 slots. The combined federal and state funding for child care and development programs total $3.6 billion (state funds of $2.7 billion and federal funds of $938 million), offering 436,185 slots.

APPs. APPs, funded with state and federal funds, offer a variety of child care arrangements for parents, including licensed family child care homes and center-based care, and arrange for payments to licensed-exempt providers, who are relatives or friends of parents or guardians. The APP helps families access child care services and makes payment for those services directly to the child care provider selected by the family. The APP is intended to increase parental choice and accommodate the individual needs of the family. APPs are reimbursed based on the number of children served and funds are appropriated based on the fiscal reporting process and budget estimations. In 2015-16, there were 75 APPs throughout the state and they range from private, nonprofit organizations to county offices of education. APPs began as pilot programs in 1977 and became permanent in 1980.

This bill establishes two nearly identical appeals processes, one for parents and one for child care providers, both licensed and licensed-exempt, who receive or provide care through APPs. Under Title 5, California Code of Regulations, the CDE has an established appeals process for parents. According to the sponsor, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), it is necessary to codify an appeals process because regulatory changes sometimes take too long.

Parent appeals. This bill allows parents to file a request for a hearing with an APP administrator and if unsatisfied with the decision, may request an appeal with the EESD. The process proposed by this bill is almost identical to Title 5 regulations, with several differences. First, the bill specifies that a NOA is required if service is approved, when there is a change in parent fees, an increase or decrease in the amount of services, or termination of services. These are consistent with Title 5 regulations. The NOA is the form used to inform parents of approval, changes, or termination of child care services. This bill adds "violation of parental choice" to the requirement to complete a NOA. According to SEIU, parents have been pushed into a particular setting that was not their choice and were told that that was all that was available. The author may wish to change this language to "change of providers" or strike this language from a requirement to issue a NOA and instead stipulate that it is an appealable issue.

Second, this bill authorizes parents to file a request for a hearing within 30 calendar days upon receipt of a NOA, whereas the regulations stipulate 14 calendar days. According to the sponsor, parent advocates have requested additional time to file an appeal. In Title 5 regulations and in the bill, NOAs are required to be sent 14 calendar days prior to the effective date of an action. This bill creates a gap between days 15 and 30 by giving parents 30 days to file an appeal. In effect, no change will likely take place until after the 30 day period if a parent does not file an appeal, until an appeal is resolved, or if the parent drops the appeal for every NOA issued.

Third, the bill requires a hearing to take place no later than 14 calendar days after the date a notice of the hearing was sent to the parent. The regulations are silent on this issue.

Fourth, if a second appeal to the EESD is requested, the bill requires the EESD to request documents necessary to hear the appeal. Title 5 regulations require parents to submit a copy of the NOA and the APP's written decision with the request for a second appeal. This bill relieves parents from having to submit documents.

Provider appeals. Title 5 regulations require APPs to establish written policies for operation, including requirements for provider participation. The regulations do not contain an appeals process for providers. The bill establishes an appeals process for child care providers that parallel the process established for parents, which is problematic in some areas, as the language for parent appeals are not fully applicable for providers.

Provider appealable issues. The bill specifies that appealable issues may include, but are not necessarily limited to, lack of notification of change in the status of parents' eligibility for care, accurate payments for services rendered, and timeliness of payments for services rendered. While accuracy of payments is something that can be resolved and determined through an appeal, it is unclear what decision an APP would make for "lack of notification of change in parent eligibility" or "timeliness of payments of services rendered," beyond an agreement by the APP to notify or make payments in a timely manner in the future.

Grievance instead of appeal? The bill requires a contractor to explain the legal, regulatory or policy basis for an action and for a provider to explain why a contractor’s decision is incorrect. It is unclear what contractor decision there is if the complaint is that payments were not made in a timely manner. Additionally, if an appeal is made with the EESD, the bill requires the EESD to make a decision that will be mailed or delivered. What decision would EESD make regarding lack of timely payment? EESD could reprimand the contractor or put the contractor on conditional status, but that’s not really a “decision" regarding an appeal. An appeals process is usually established in order to determine whether a decision should be reversed or changed. It's different than a grievance process, where a complaint may be made in order to improve a process. The EESD already has authority provided under EC Section 8406.7 to terminate an APP contract for specified actions or inactions, including failure to fully reimburse a significant number of child care providers. Perhaps that section can be strengthened to establish a process for EESD to receive and investigate complaints by providers. Staff recommends the following options for consideration:

1. Establish a grievance process rather than an appeals process for providers.
2. Instead of an appeals process, strengthen the provisions in EC Section 8406.7 to require the CDE to investigate complaints for any of the reasons specified in Section 8406.7.
3. If the author chooses to keep an appeals process, if the appeal is not about payments (e.g., not being paid the correct amount), change the requirement that the EESD must make a "decision," and instead require EESD to investigate and take actions to address any problems with the contractor if necessary.

Other issues in the provider appeals section. The bill requires the intended action to be suspended until a review process has been completed. This language was adapted from the parent appeals language, but it is not clear how it is applicable. There is no intended action for an appeal about not being paid on time. It's not even clear how it's applicable if the appeal is about not being paid the correct amount.

If a provider seeks a second appeal, the bill requires the EESD to request copies of the basic data file, including the intended NOA and other relevant material. It is not clear why the EESD would need the NOA if the provider appeal is about not being paid or not being paid on time.

The bill requires a contractor to carry out an intended action or notify the provider and the parent who was initially affected by the original decision based on a decision made by the EESD. There is no intended action if the appeal is about not being notified about a change in parent eligibility for care or not being paid on time.

The SEIU states, "Existing law lacks a uniform policy for resolving disputes around child care payments. Errors in payments can cause problems for both parents and providers and can eligible children without care. Currently there is an ineffective complaints procedure at the Department of Education for parents. This is no such procedure for providers….AB 2133 does not propose to penalize an alternative payment program if the appellant's position was upheld. It is more about changing how the alternative payment program operates and relates to providers."

Prior related legislation. AB 315 (De Leon), introduced in 2009, would have required CDE to establish guidelines for APPs regarding payments to providers and other related administrative procedures. The bill passed the Assembly on a 47-30 vote but was gutted and amended to address a different issue in the Senate.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

United Domestic Workers of America/AFSCME Local 3930

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087