08/19/2026
Get EVERYONE you know to email the Senate budget office ASAP!: [email protected]
CDSS claimed it would cost $3 million per year for more program analysts to check providers. However, for 4 years during covid and then again it was reinstated after the LA fires, the state of California allowed providers to have TWO additional above total number of children allowed OF ANY AGE. If CDSS did not claim they needed more funding to check on two additional children for four years during covid and fires when they were doing inspections via zoom, then it's bogus to claim they would need additional program funding to keep the same/regular limit of children present.
Making this change is developmentally appropriate. Part of the problem is that children 18 to 24 months in California that is one of only six states that still count this age of children as infants, no different than a child aged 6 months. The term toddler does not exist in licensed family child care for which provide care the least expensive in California for families. Because children aged 18 to 24 months our languishing in this infant category and taking up spaces in this infant category, providers cannot move them on to a higher ratio category of one to six like two year olds are. This does those children a disservice and disrespects their development. So that means parents of true infants under a year old cannot find care because they're being taken up by these children 18 to 24 months that are not infants. But since the state calls them infants, providers can't utilize existing space that are already chronically empty, just waiting to be used.
Minimum wage going up is going to further aggravate this whole situation.
Send an email!
We have an urgent need to support SB 1200! Please copy the letter below, paste it into a new email, replace Sincerely... with your name at the end, and email it to the California Senate and Assembly Budget Committees. You can also call, but first please email:
[email protected]; (916) 651-4103
[email protected]; (916) 319-2099
Dear Chairs and Members, Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review & Assembly Committee on Budget,
I reject the California Department of Social Services’ (CDSS) fiscal estimate of $3.68 million and 16 permanent positions for SB 1200. CDSS’ fiscal claim drastically mischaracterizes administrative reality. SB 1200 is a modest statutory age-range update without requiring operational expansion and is in line with Health & Safety Code § 1597.30.
1. The Fiscal Claim is Inflated
CDSS requests 13 Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) and two full-time attorneys to alter a single age boundary from 24 months to 18 months. However, SB 1200 does not create new facilities, alter total home capacity limits (capped at 8 for small homes and 14 for large homes or less and only when certain circumstances are met), or change physical home footprints. Inspectors will review the exact same number of homes and capacity of children’s files. Furthermore, CDSS can execute this regulatory update through a standard Provider Information Notice (PIN), eliminating the need for dedicated legal staff or multi-year rulemaking.
2. Expert Consensus: 18–24 Month-Olds Are Not Infants
Nationally recognized child development experts and 44 other states agree that children aged 18 to 24 months are toddlers, not infants; however, neither the term nor the concept of “toddler” appears in Title 22 that governs FCCHs. Treating an 18-month-old identically to a 3-month-old newborn ratio ignores basic developmental science and artificially restricts child care access across California.
3. COVID-19 and Fire Executive Waivers Set a Safe Precedent
During the COVID-19 pandemic, executive orders granted Family Child Care Homes (FCCHs) immediate operational flexibilities to accommodate two extra children across any age group for an indefinite period of time before being discontinued four years later with the discontinuation of the pandemic umbrella. Additionally, following the Los Angeles fires, the two-additional-children was reinstated. During these periods:
There does not appear to be a statistical increase in child endangerment or safety incidents cited.
CDSS did not require $3+ million or a fleet of new licensing analysts to oversee the adjusted capacity.
Claiming that aligning definitions with 44 other states will suddenly trigger a surge in safety incidents is entirely unsubstantiated.
4. Federal Guidance Favors Common-Sense Regulatory Reform
As the federal Administration for Children and Families (ACF) recently highlighted: “At a time when too many policymakers want to throw more taxpayer money at the problem of expensive child care without tackling the underlying cost drivers, reforming regulations represents simple common sense.” SB 1200 is precisely the type of revenue-neutral, common-sense reform federal regulators advocate.
Additional Key Factors for Committee Consideration
Committee Votes: Until CDSS’ late submission, the previous committees and Senate floor represent a vote of 51-0 in favor of SB 1200.
Vacancy Relief & Provider Sustainability: Family Child Care Homes across California are closing at alarming rates due to surging operational costs and regulatory caps from 1982. FCCHs currently sit with chronically empty spaces that providers are legally prohibited from utilizing for walking, mobile children over 18 months. SB 1200 allows providers to fill existing vacant capacity in a developmentally appropriate way, remain solvent without relying on additional state subsidies, and keep child care costs lower for working parents.
Preventing Unregulated Care: Inflated administrative barriers do not stop parents from needing infant care; they force families into illegal, unregulated arrangements that completely lack CDSS safety oversight.
We urge the Committee to reject CDSS’s fiscal assessment and support SB 1200.
Thank you,
{TYPE YOUR NAME}
