the 12-month eligibility 45-comment chart - proposed ... · web viewcalifornia education for a...

12-Month Eligibility Rulemaking45-Day Public Comment Summary Chart

Public Comment Period June 12, 2020 through July 27, 2020

Proposed Section

Commenter Comment/Recommendation Agency Response

18078(a)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.

Laurie Furstenfeld - Childcare Law Center (See Letter # 6 and oral comment)

Add "and" between "child development services," and "excluding the non-countable income"

RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.

Proposed Section


18078(a)(3) * This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add "loans" to non-countable income. RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.

Proposed Section


18078(c)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


We recommend inserting a definition for “child” or “eligible child” below, and inserting the definition from section 18407.


Proposed Section


18078(c)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Change definition of (c) to:

(c) “Child who has protective services” or identified as or at-risk of neglect, abuse or exploitation” means a child receiving child welfare services through the local county welfare department or a child who is identified as or at risk of being neglected, abused, or exploited by a legal, medical, or social services agency, a local educational agency liaison for homeless children and youths designated pursuant to Section 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii) of Title 42 of the United States Code, a Head Start program, or an emergency or transitional shelter. This definition applies to a child living with a “parent” or any type of “family” as defined below in [insert subsections (g)]. Children who meet this definition are eligible for child care services without regard to their or their family’s income, and receive first priority for child care, pursuant to EC 8263(a)(1) and 8263.1(b)(1).

“Child protective services” is the agency that provides child welfare services. The current definition is confusing and does not correspond to the meaning of “child protective services.” Child protective services is not a type of service and it is not listed as a service in the Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, regulations or CDSS website. We should also think about how to define “at-risk” and whether this is an appropriate term to use at all (even though this is the current term used in Educ. Code section 8263). What makes a child “at-risk”? Oftentimes, the term “at-risk” is used to describe black and brown children, and without describing what and why they are “at risk.”


Proposed Section


18078(i) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Keep existing language, too much trouble to have look elsewhere for definitions.

Children and youths who may be living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, shelters.

Children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

Children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings, or

Migratory children who qualify as homeless because they are children who are living in similar circumstances listed above

RejectThe CDE wants to keep definitions aligned by referencing the federal code as this eliminates the need to change regulations when the federal definition changes.

18078(h)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Replace "means:" with "includes:" RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.

Proposed Section


18078(j)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Remove, "For purposes of income eligibility and family fee determination", add "the" before "family", and replace "be considered" with "consist of".

Add "Income of the child and that child’s siblings can only be taken into account if the child no longer qualifies for child care based on: (1) receiving child protective services; or (2) considered at-risk or exploited."

This current language confuses contractors because it begins with the words “for purposes of income eligibility and family fee determination,” when in fact most foster care situations will not consider the child’s income. Many contractors erroneously conclude that they must take into account a child’s income when initially determining child care eligibility. This provision should clarify that these children are eligible irrespective of anyone’s income.


18078(l) CDSS (See Letter #8)

“Has a need for child care services and is employed, participating in a CalWORKs activity”: This is a potential conflict with CDSS (See Letter #8) regulations/immediate and continuous eligibility, which does not require a parent to have a specific “need” or to participate in an activity to receive child care. Stage One Child Care is authorized immediately upon CalWORKs cash aid approval.

Recommendation: CDE should change language to: “Immediate and continuous child care” is defined as the concurrent approval of CalWORKs cash aid and authorization for full-time CalWORKs Stage One Child Care services.

Reject The CDE does not have “immediate and continuous eligibility” and it is not an eligibility category for programs administered by CDE. Programs administered by the CDE require that families meet eligibility and need requirements in order to be eligible for services.

Proposed Section


18078(m) CDSS (See Letter #8)

EDC 8263.1. (a) states: For purposes of establishing initial income eligibility for services under this chapter, “income eligible” means that a family’s adjusted monthly income is at or below 85 percent of the state median income, adjusted for family size, as specified in subdivision (c). CDSS (See Letter #8) must update MPP accordingly.

RejectThis comment does not require a response.

18078(n)(2) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

This language as amended still lacks clarity. For instance, does the language as written mean that ALL self-employment or just inconsistent/and or stable self-employment is considered “income fluctuation”? This definition is unclear and suggests that any variation in income for a parent paid hourly could be considered fluctuating, and 12-months of income information would have to be collected per the section on calculation of income later in this document.

Accept. The CDE accepted this change and removed the comma between "inconsistent" and "and/or" and the comma between "employment" and "or self-employment" to clarify that the "inconsistent and/or unstable" is applicable to both employment and self-employment.

18078(n)(2) and (3)

Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

The insertion of “overtime” highlighted above was inserted into the intermittent category. This will be very cumbersome on parents to provide 12 months of income as well as for agencies to do the math to pull out all the overtime from 12-months’ worth of paystubs to complete this average. This carries a lot of compliancy risk for agencies as well. We suggest giving contracts the flexibility to provide 3 to 12 months of income, excluding overtime.

RejectThe federal regulations require the CDE to develop a policy to ensure that occasional changes in income do not affect the family's eligibility. Therefore, the CDE developed this policy to average out occasional changes across a 12-month period to ensure it does not impact the family's eligibility.

Proposed Section


18078(n)(2)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add "hours of employment or frequency of pay, or" before "self-employment resulting in an inconsistent pattern of income; or"


Proposed Section


18078(n)(3)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Remove "lottery winnings, inheritance, back child support payment, or net proceeds from the sale of real property or stock" and add, "to the extent that they can be reasonable anticipated to continue".

Temporary, irregular or one-time payments should be excluded --not considered and averaged under rules for fluctuating income. The definition as currently written violates federal CCDBG law and regulations which clearly direct lead agencies to treat temporary or irregular income fluctuations in a manner that does not affect eligibility or family co-payments.45 C.F.R. § 98.21(c).One time payments such as proceeds from the sale of an asset, inheritances, lottery winnings and back child support should not be considered at initial certification, in determining whether such a temporary fluctuation causes a family to exceed the income threshold or at redetermination. Id. We urge reconsideration of this definition.


18078(n)(3) Sandra Brieno - City of Moreno Valley (See Letter #1)

The proposed amendments to 12-Month Eligibility moving overtime from “unpredictable” to “intermittent” income (18078.n.3) and related changes to “income calculation” for overtime (18084.1.c), would create more challenges for parents applying for childcare services. Many times families will not have any other type of intermittent income such as bonuses, commissions, lottery winnings, inheritance, back child support, sale of real property or stock, but they will have occasional overtime. In our experience, the requirement to provide 12 months of pay records is many times unduly burdensome for parents. Referenced sections are attached and highlighted in the proposed change document.


Proposed Section


18078(n)(3) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

Input“Overtime” highlighted above was inserted into the intermittent category. This will be very cumbersome on parents to provide 12 months of income as well as for agencies to do the math to pull out all the overtime from 12 months’ worth of paystubs to calculate this average. This carries a lot of compliancy risk for agencies as well. Additionally, there are some parents whose overtime is paid via a prevailing wage and the tracking and collection of this will be very burdensome to the parent.

RecommendationRemove “overtime” from this definition.


18078(p)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add "enrollment" between "the" and "criteria" and remove ", respectively".


Proposed Section


18078(p)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Remove "Legally" and just name the term "Qualified Professional".

Add, "or who is authorized" and "educational" to the definition.

The proposed definition of who may make a referral should be consistent with, and not more restrictive than, Ed. Code § 8208(k).“Children at risk of abuse, neglect, or exploitation” means children who are so identified in a written referral from a legal, medical, or social service agency, or emergency shelter.” This added requirement of “licensed” that is in current and proposed regulations is overly restrictive and causes many documentation problems. We suggest either removing the words “licensed under applicable law and regulations of CA” or at a minimum, add “or who is authorized.” Currently, some contractors take “licensed” to mean that the professionals making the referral needs to have a state board license, such as a license in social work. Many case workers or social workers at CPS, homeless shelters, Head Start, etc. who are qualified under the statute to make child care referrals, do not have their license in social work, psychology, marriage and family therapy, etc.


Proposed Section


18078(o) and (t) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

(o)“Initial certification” means the formal processes the contractor goes through to collect information and documentation to determine that the family and/or child meets the criteria for receipt of subsidized child development services as specified in Education Code sections 8263(a)(1)(A) and 8263(a)(1)(B), respectively. The dated signature of the contractor’s authorized representative on an application for services certifies that the criteria have been met, and begins the period of eligibility.

InputPrior to the release of these proposed regulations, agencies had the flexibility to determine the no less than 12 months period of eligibility. Having language that specifies that the period of eligibility begins when the contractor’s authorized representative has dated and signed the application for services is restrictive on the contractor’s processes. Additionally, using this date creates inconsistencies in the actual length of service between one family and another. RecommendationUpdate the language to reflect “The no less than 12 months eligibility period begins according to the contractor’s initial certification and recertification policies”. OR “The no less than 12 months eligibility period begins as of the effective date on the Notice of Action approving child care services or when the dated signature of the contractor’s authorized representative has signed the application for services certifying that the criteria have been met”.

RejectThe Early Learning and Care Division (ELCD) does not agree with the need to change this regulation. This requirement as written is clear and provides equity across the State.

Proposed Section


18078(r)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


This is another term we would like to see changed. “Incapacity” dehumanizes and disregards a parent’s strengths and abilities. It’s a demeaning adjective to describe anyone, particularly black and brown parents. The term perpetuates the false and racist narrative that black and brown parents, and parents with low incomes are incapable of caring for or supervising their children.


Proposed Section


18078(t)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add "In accordance with section 8263(h), this recertification process shall take place no sooner than 12 months following the initial certification or previous recertification." Remove, "respectively".


Former Section 18078(t)


Updates still happen with 12 month eligibility. This should not be stricken.

RejectWhile families may voluntary request changes to their services, contractors will no longer be "updating the application" as it was previously done and defined. An “update” of applications was previously conducted as necessary between certifications to determine a family’s eligibility in the interim. With 12-month eligibility, there should be no need to regularly “update” applications as previously done except as otherwise articulated in statute or regulation.

Proposed Section


18078(u)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


"Recipient", is a passive word and implies the person who has services is getting something (child care), while offering nothing in return. It also reinforces this unequal power dynamic between a "server" vs "recipient." We urge the agency to meet with parents, especially black and brown parents, to determine whether this word is acceptable to them and if not, instead use a word that emphasizes a parent’s right to self-determination and autonomy.


Proposed Section


18078 previous (r)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


We recommend that the definitions still include "State Median Income", amend as described below:

“State median income (SMI)” means the most recent median income, based on most recent census data for California families as determined by the State Department of Finance and in accordance with Education Code section 8263.1(c).


Proposed Section


18078(v) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

This definition is specific to employment. However, in 18084 (4) Documentation of Income Eligibility; Income and Family Fees It states the parent shall also provide documentation of all non-wage income, which includes, self-certification of any income for which no documentation is possible, and any verified child support payments as defined in section 18078.

For clarity, suggest that it be written as follows: (v) “Self-Certification of Income” means a declaration signed by the parent under penalty of perjury identifying: (1) the employer’s name, address, start date of work, the rate and frequency of pay, the total amount of income received for the preceding month(s), the type of work performed, and the hours and days worked. (2) for which no documentation is possible, the income source, the amount received, and the frequency of the income.

Accept In PartThe CDE accepts this change in concept to clarify what to include when a family has no income from employment and may have non-wage income.

Reject In PartThe CDE rejects the specific language provided to accomplish the goal.

Proposed Section


18078(w)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add "that is not excluded in the 17definition of adjusted monthly income under subsection (a)," between "means all income" and "of the individuals".

We suggest this addition to clarify that one should exclude all non-countable income from the definition found in subsection (a).


18078(w)(1) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

The deletion of advances, contradicts the assessment of ongoing income. How this would be excluded in an income assessment, or how would this be treated? This carries a lot of compliancy risk for agencies as well.

RejectThis deletion is necessary as salary advances should be reported as salary, and having advances in addition to “salary” might cause it to be counted twice

Proposed Section


18078(x) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

Focus on a family strength based approach. The proposed language lacks clarity and consistency in use of terminology that could result in unintended outcomes applied to families. By defining “variable schedules” as inconsistent and/or unstable, then that implies that variable schedules would be lumped into the definition of income fluctuation (above 18078(l)(2)) which then means that ANYONE with a “variable schedule” has to supply 12-months of income (18084.1(c)(2)). Finally, delete the words "as provided in Education Code section 8221.5" as Education Code does noes not use that reference.

RejectEducation Code section 8221.5 does refer to variable schedules and explains how Alternative Payments are paid when a family has a variable schedule. While it is true that some families that have a variable schedule will be required to provide 12-months of income, it is not always the case, as a variable schedule refers to inconsistent and or unstable hours that a family needs care week to week and it is possible that the family’s income does not fluctuate greatly month to month. The potential inconvenience for families having to provide 12-months of income is outweighed by the need to ensure families are not denied eligibility due to a short period of inflated earnings based on with income fluctuation with a variable schedule.

Proposed Section


18078(y)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Keep the part of the definition that was deleted: "that leas the enrollee on to a higher education or job skill level to stabilize the enrollee's economic status." Or replace with "or job skill level to stabilize the enrollee's economic status."

This part of the definition should remain because sometimes professionals need to take classes or trainings to keep their job. I.e., A machine operator’s job now requires a manufacturing job to be computerized. The machine operator will need to take classes in order to maintain their current job or a similar job somewhere else.


18078(b) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(b) “Certified Schedule” means the number of hours per day and/or week that a family is approved to receive subsidized early learning and care services. This is also referred to sometimes as a “child care schedule.” (included space after “services.”)

AcceptThe CDE updated this definition to include a space between "early learning and care services." and "This."

Proposed Section


18078(n)(3) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(n)(3) Intermittent, occasional, sporadic, or infrequent earnings or income, including but not limited to bonuses, commissions, lottery winnings, inheritance, back child 11 support payment, overtime or net proceeds from the sale of real property or stock; (The suggestion appears to be to delete the space before "Overtime", but this is a typo; the other suggestion is to delete the semicolon and add a period, but this is done in the final version of the regs provided to stakeholders).

RejectThe punctuation in this definition is correct and the way it was intended by the CDE.

18078(v) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(v) “Self-Certification of Income” means a declaration signed by the parent under 13 penalty of perjury identifying,: to the extent known, the employer’s name, address, start 14 date of work, the rate and frequency of pay, the total amount of income received for the 15 preceding month(s), the type of work performed, and the hours and days worked. (suggested to delete comma)

RejectThe punctuation in this definition is correct and the way it was intended by the CDE.

18078(y) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(y) “Vocational training” means an educational or job training/apprenticeship/internship program and/or courses and/or classes leading to a recognized trade, paraprofession or profession. (Suggestion is to add "and/or")

RejectThe courses and/or classes in this definition refer to those that are educational, part of job training, part of an apprenticeship, or part of an internship program that lead to a recognized trade, paraprofession or profession. Therefore, the additional "and/or" requested is rejected because including it would broaden the courses and/or classes which is not the intention of the CDE.

18081(a)(10) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Recommend revisiting or keeping an abbreviated version of this language. There is no other section in these regulations where it states the documentation required for CPS or At Risk Eligibility.

RejectThe documentation required for Child Protective Services or at-risk children is in section 18092, title 5 of the California Code of Regulations.

Proposed Section


18081(b) and (c) CDSS (See Letter #8)

Potential conflict: need criteria (parent is employed, parent is seeking employment…) Recommendation: CDE should change language to: Records supporting documentation of eligibility include: (1) the parent has been approved for cash aid. Information about parent being employed, seeking employment, enrolled in vocational training, etc. is unnecessary to receive child care (unless capturing this family data would be useful for other purposes).

In addition, with regard to section (c)(4), there is not a definitive way for an AP contractor to know if a relative provider was also caring for an unrelated child unless that unrelated child was also on the AP program. This information may therefore be difficult to obtain.

RejectThe need criteria listed in section 18081 is required for early learning and care programs and aligns with Education Code section 8263.

The child health and safety records align with the requirements of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations sections 98.41(a)(1)(i)(B)(1) and (2).

18081(b)(1)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Some contractors believe an income calculation worksheet is always required. Income calculation should not be part of the eligibility process if the family qualifies for child care based on receiving CalWORKs cash assistance; experiencing homelessness; or receiving CPS or are considered “at-risk.” It should be clear that eligibility only needs to be based on one of the following. Inserting “at least” may solve this problem.


Proposed Section


18081(b)(1)(A)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


This does not describe what documentation is needed. Add "documentation that includes whether any family member is currently receiving cash assistance, and/or the date that the parent last received cash assistance or a diversion payment."


18081(b)(1)(G) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(G) The parent is enrolled in an educational programs; (suggestion is to add "an" and make "programs" singular)

RejectThe CDE did not accept this language because the parent may be enrolled in more than one educational program.

Proposed Section


18081(b)(2)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Similar to the comment above, we suggest including this language to clarify that a family must meet only one of the “need” requirements.


Proposed Section


18081(c)(1)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Edit (c)(1) to say: (1) Documentation of a child’s exceptional needs or severe disability, as defined in Ed. Code § 8208, if applicable, to establish eligibility for an adjustment factor and;

The only reason to request this documentation is in order to pay the provider the appropriate adjustment factor. This should be clarified to ensure that providers who care for those children who require extra care and supervision are receiving the correct amount of payment (reimbursement rate).


Proposed Section




Please ensure that these cross reference are correct for the timing of notices as some sections have changed with multiple revisions.


Proposed Section


18081(c)(3) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(3) For all center-based contractors, including those that provide services through a Family Child Care Home Education Network, the family data file shall contain all child health and current emergency information required by California Code of Regulations, title 22, Social Security, division 12, and Community Care Facilities Licensing Regulations.

CommentThis is a concern with lines of employer/employee being blurred with FCCHEN child care providers, particularly those reimbursed with the Regional Market Rate by AP Agencies. FCCHEN providers (reimbursed through AP agencies) are required to have this documentation for licensing; our suggestion is to ensure that Community Care Licensing is allowed to continue enforcing this as part of their jurisdiction with providers.

RejectThis requirement is specific to FCCHENs that contract directly with the CDE, therefore this is not a concern of the CDE as the family data file is kept by the contractor, not the provider. If a parent has chosen to receive childcare through the use of an AP voucher, and the family chooses to use their voucher in a family childcare home provider that is associated with a FCCHEN, the AP agency would only be required to have the emergency information for the family and would not be required to have the child’s health information. The requirements for documentation required for AP agencies can be found in (c)(4).

18081(c)(3) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

The proposed language lacks clarity and reference. “For all center based contractors”, does this include General Child Care and Development (CCTR) or just actual State Preschools or both? Any center based direct service provider would collect such information.

RejectThe CDE does not believe this needs further clarification.

Proposed Section


18081(c)(3)(i–iii) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

The above language requires AP contractors that do not directly provide care for children collect and retain health and emergency information. This information is collected by the direct child care providers both public and private. Further testament to this, is CDE MB 18-042 that specifically made note that Alternative Payment Programs are not required to collect immunization records for homeless children and youth. The clarity and AP exclusion clearly demonstrates that such a requirement of one directly caring for the child but solely focused on eligibility of a family to choose a provider that best supports their need could provide a hardship and a delay of services for a family.

Additionally, in the final rule to the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) based on the Child Care and Development Block Grant of 20143, “§ 98.41 HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS, Section 658E(c)(2)(I)(i) of the Act requires Lead Agencies to have in effect health and safety requirements for providers and caregivers caring for children receiving CCDF assistance that relate to ten health and safety topics: (i) Prevention and control of infectious diseases (including immunization).”

RejectThe child health and safety records are in alignment with the requirements of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations sections 98.41(a)(1)(i)(B)(1) and (2) which requires agencies to retain immunization records when the child is served in specific license-exempt settings.

Proposed Section



(4) For all Alternative Payment Programs inclusive of CalWORKs Stage 2 and 3 Child Care Programs, the family data file shall contain the child’s current emergency information required by California Code of Regulations, title 22, Social Security, division 12, and Community Care Facilities Licensing Regulations. Immunization records are not required to be kept on file unless the child is receiving care from a license-exempt provider, either in the child’s own home or at the home of a relative of the child, and there are other unrelated children being cared for in the same setting. Comment We are potentially creating disparity in parental choice if immunization records must be submitted prior to approval with a license-exempt provider that a family has selected. This is a big issue for foster children in which access to these records is extremely difficult and burdensome for the family.

As a parental choice voucher-based program, immunization records should be a discussion between parent and provider, not the AP agency as an intermediary.

RejectThe child health and safety records are required to align with the requirements of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations sections 98.41(a)(1)(i)(B)(1) and (2).

Proposed Section


18081(c)(4) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

Input“Relative” highlighted above needs clarification – which definition of relative does this refer to, Title 22 definition or TrustLine definition?

“Unrelated children” highlighted above needs clarification – does this mean that there is no relation between the children or between the provider and the children?

For clarity, insert the specific code sections being referenced. Providing details supports greater compliance and consistency for agencies. In regards to the noted reference to Title 22 and Community Care Facilities Licensing Regulations, it is important to spell out, not simply cross reference, for clarity and consistency of interpretation. Further, in regards to agencies that are not providing the direct service to the child, exactly what is the desired outcome as to the “why” a contractor must be required to collect.

In regards to (4) overall, it is unnecessary and burdensome to require contractors that do not provide direct child care to require that current emergency information including immunization records. The requirement of the collection of the above sets a higher standard for contractors NOT PROVIDING direct child care than to those referenced in licensed child facilities including licensed family child care as so noted.

For parents unable to provide all of the noted materials referenced above, potentially can result in ineligibility of an otherwise income eligible family.

RejectThe CDE does not agree that further clarification is needed to define a "relative", as the provider would have to meet the definition in order to receive a TrustLine clearance.

The CDE does not believe that additional clarification for "unrelated children" is necessary, we think that it is clear that it refers to other children not related to the child receiving services.

The CDE does not agree that it is necessary to "spell out" the applicable regulations, as referencing the title 22 regulations ensures that if changes are made to the title 22 regulations further updates will not be required to align title 5 regulations.

The child health and safety records are required to align with the requirements of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations sections 98.41(a)(1)(i)(B)(1) and (2). This requirement is only for AP agencies to collect this information when the family chooses a license-exempt provider because licensed providers are already required to follow these requirements pursuant to title 22 regulations.

Proposed Section


RecommendationIf the requirement must stay for Alternative Payment Programs, strongly recommend language that allows non-licensed providers and parents acknowledge that they understand that they are required to collect immunization records when the provider is caring for multiple families that are unrelated to each other. Otherwise, how would agencies know? This would also require guidance from the State on how agencies are to meet the requirements. Also recommend using the exact language from the Federal regulations.

18081(c)(5) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

This applies only if the eligibility is income, not for part day CSPP Preschool (special needs or FRPM qualified), child protective services or at-risk. As written here it is inconsistent with later direction (proposed 18082.1 (d)).

AcceptThe CDE accepted this recommendation and added, "When the family is certified as income eligible…" to clarify that the requirement to report when the family's income exceeds the threshold is only applicable when the family is certified on the basis of income eligibility.

Proposed Section




“Threshold” is “anyplace or point of entering or beginning.” Therefore using “threshold” to describe the income upper limit by which a parent exits the child care program is confusing, and opposite of what is intended to describe here. We strongly suggest that “threshold” be changed to “limit” throughout the regulations when used in this context.


Proposed Section


18082(a)(2)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add "and the specific dollar amount of that limit" at the end of (a)(2).


Proposed Section


18082(a)(2)–(d) CDSS (See Letter #8)

RecommendationWith regard to (c), further discussion is needed with CDE to come to a consensus on the reasons for disenrolling a participant (including the possibility of disenrolling due to abandonment of care, parent request, or the non-payment of family fees). Immediate and continuous eligibility guidance states: If counties determine that the participant did not utilize the provider or the hours authorized upon receipt of the child care, counties should take reasonable steps to assess changes in the participant’s circumstances regarding the use of child care hours authorized and provider selected to prevent an overpayment.

Reject in-partThe language "Except as otherwise provided for in law or regulation" ensures that any other law or regulation that allows for disenrollment still applies. Further, the programs administered pursuant to the Child Care and Development Services Act do not have immediate and continuous eligibility, therefore that guidance does not apply to these contracted programs. The federal and state requirement of 12-month eligibility does not allow the contractor to reassess the certified hours of the family within the 12-month certification period unless it is specifically requested by the parent.

Accept in-partHowever, because an abandonment of care policy was included the CDE added this as a reason for disenrollment in this section.

Proposed Section


18082(b)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add, "in their preferred language". Parents need to be able to read and understand any information that is sent to them, especially notices that affect their services and rights. At minimum, the Department must comply with the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act (Govt. Code sections 7290 et seq.) which requires all information and forms be provided in any non-English language spoken by a substantial number of members of the public whom the Department serves. Best practice would be to ask each parent when they apply for childcare in what language they prefer communications.


18082(c) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

For consistency and clarity add “(4) Abandonment of care and (5) Parent request”.

Reject in-partThe language "Except as otherwise provided for in law or regulation" ensures that any other law or regulation that allows for disenrollment still applies.


Proposed Section



Further, this language does not include language to allow a contractor to dis-enroll families during their 12-month eligibility period for failure to pay family fees. If not addressed, this silence in practice could results in an undue burden for the families at the time of their recertification, as they may have thousands of dollars of outstanding family fees that need to be paid in order to recertify. It is therefore proposed to include language that allows contractors to dis-enroll families during the not less than 12-month eligibility period for failure to follow board-approved policies as long as they are not in conflict with state or federal law. Also, to reference existing practice is CDE Form CD-7617 (Rev 7/14).

Finally, in (3), note a period after “certification” and delete “and the family is not otherwise eligible.” In review of abandonment of care, it is important to reference this as California’s Lead Agency provides for sub grantees to set policies (e.g. attendance) and may discontinue care for non-attendance.

RejectThe language "Except as otherwise provided for in law or regulation" ensures that any other law or regulation that allows for disenrollment still applies. The language "and the family is not otherwise eligible" is a federal requirement and therefore cannot be deleted.

18082(c) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

CommentToo prescriptive. There might be other instances. Allow for contractors own policies here.

RejectThe language "Except as otherwise provided for in law or regulation" ensures that any other law or regulation that allows for disenrollment still applies. This is not an all-inclusive list of reasons why a family may be disenrolled, other reasons are already addressed in different sections of regulation.

Proposed Section



Sometimes this is reported by the provider, and is not always accurate.

Accept“As reported by the parent” was added to ensure that the information is accurate from the parent rather than the contractor.


InputThis language references only a residency change outside of California.

RecommendationNeed to include language regarding a residency change into another contractor’s service area or county; transfer issues, and how to dis/continue services within a recertification period.

RejectTitle 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 98.21(a)(5) limits the exception for disenrollment to a residency change outside the State. A residency change within the state does not affect a family’s 12-month eligibility therefore the CDE will not be addressing those concerns in these regulations, technical assistance will be provided to contractors.


This language references only a residency changes outside of California. There is also a need to include language regarding a residency change into another agency service area or county; transfer issues, and how to dis/continue services within a recertification period. Contractors should be allowed to terminate if every effort has been made to transfer parent, but has not been successful.

RejectTitle 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 98.21(a)(5) limits the exception for disenrollment to a residency change outside the State. A residency change within the state does not affect a family’s 12-month eligibility therefore the CDE will not be addressing those concerns in these regulations, technical assistance will be provided to contractors.

Proposed Section


18082(c)(3) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter #7)

InputThe word “invalidates” is vague and complicates this regulation and the language of “and the family is not otherwise eligible” provides no further guidance to what an agency is supposed to do. A parent could submit falsified wage stubs to reduce a parent fee. Upon review, the parent’s approved need is correct and the parent is still income eligible using the true income. What happens if the true income is at a different parent fee amount? Does the agency go back and bill the correct parent fee? Does the agency disenroll the family? This is under disenrollment exceptions.

RecommendationEnd the proposed language after the word “fraud”. Remove “that invalidates the initial certification and the family is not otherwise eligible.

RejectThe language "that invalidates the initial certification and the family is not otherwise eligible" is a federal requirement and therefore cannot be deleted.

18082(c)(3) and (4)

Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(2) When the parent changes residency outside of California, as reported by the family; or (3) When there is substantiated evidence of fraud that invalidates the initial certification and the family is not otherwise eligible; or (4) When the family requests to self-disenroll. (suggested additions)

Accept in-partThe CDE added the language, "as reported by the parent" to ensure accuracy when disenrolling families.

Reject in-partThe language "Except as otherwise provided for in law or regulation" ensures that any other law or regulation that allows for disenrollment still applies, therefore when a family requests to self-disenroll the contractor must disenroll the family.

Proposed Section


18082.1(a) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(a) Families shall be recertified for services by the contractor no later than 50 calendar days two months following the last day of the 12-month certification period, which starts with the day the agency’s authorized representative signed the last application for services.

CommentPlease allow agencies to grandfather in these regulations as many agencies have provided a longer eligibility period/period to complete recertification due to current COVID-19 related issues (notification to parents issues via a Notice of Action). Additionally, it would be in the best interest of families and providers, if these dates are changed to “months” for transparency and ease for families and child care providers. The language of calendar days can result in prorated provider payments with such limitations.

RejectTo ensure equity and consistent implementation across the state, the CDE believes that 50 days is a reasonable length of time to recertify families given the contractor can reach out to the parent 30 days prior to the end of the eligibility period. The CDE believes that allowing contractors to "grandfather" regulations would create too many inconsistencies across the state and would result in a burdensome monitoring process. The use of "calendar days" is transparent to families and contractors.

Proposed Section


18082.1(a)18410.1(a)18425.1(a)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


The clock must stop if the parent files an appeal. We heard from at least one contractor they were cited for not completing a timely recertification where the parent had filed an appeal, the appeal was decided in the parent’s favor, and the recertification did not occur within this mandated period. Given the agency duty to allow for rescheduling of the appeal for cause, this appeal period should not be counted in the timeliness requirement, and should be stated as so.


Proposed Section


18082.1(a) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputSpecifying a specific number of calendar days in which a contractor must have the recertification complete is restrictive. Prior to these proposed regulations, contractors have already developed policies and procedures around no less than 12 months eligibility for initial certification and recertification that works for their agency.

RecommendationSuggest to change wording to - Families shall have their eligibility determined for continued child care and development services no sooner than the 12 month eligibility period. Please also see previous comment on page 2 regarding the definition of initial certification and recertification.

RejectTo ensure equity and consistent implementation across the state, the CDE believes that 50 days is a reasonable length of time to recertify families given the contractor can reach out to the parent 30 days prior to the end of the eligibility period.

Proposed Section


18082.1(a) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

The 50-calendar day is restrictive and inconsistent with 4Cs current practice of at least 90 calendar days. The 90 days allows for adequate time the parent to recertify and collect 12 months of income for those families who are on variable schedules (as indicated in these changes). Many families need a great amount of support in collecting their document (especially for 12-months). 4Cs finds this requirement too prescriptive and asks that the regulations in general provide more flexibility and autonomy for contractors to use the policies and practices developed in the last years.

OR add more clarity as provided for in reasoning for change: or 30 days from the date parent signs.

Additionally, during the current pandemic, many contractors and families are not able to recertify and in a state of emergency the restrictions presented by this proposal are not possible. This would place undue stress on families and increase error percentages for agencies.


18082.1(a)–(e) CDSS (See Letter #8)

CDSS (See Letter #8) supports efforts to expedite or maintain client access to child care.

With regard to section (e), further discussion is needed with CDE to come to a consensus on the reasons for disenrolling a participant (including the possibility of disenrolling due to abandonment of care, parent request, or the non-payment of family fees).



Proposed Section


18082.1(b) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(b) In order to recertify families, the contractor’s authorized representative shall:

(1) Notify the parent in writing in the final 30 days month of the 12-month certification period, which starts with the day the contractor’s authorized representative signed the last application for services, of:

RejectThe use of "30 days" is more specific and therefore ensures consistent implementation across the State.

18082.1(b)(1) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputSpecifying a specific number of days in which a contractor must notify the parent in writing is restrictive. Prior to these proposed regulations, contractors have already developed policies and procedures around no less than 12 months eligibility for initial certification and recertification that works for their agency.

RecommendationRemove the language (b)(1) in its entirety. Update (b) to add “notify the parent in writing”. This would allow contractors to develop own policies.

RejectThe specificity of "30 days" ensures consistent implementation across the state. The CDE believes that allowing contractors to develop policies about recertification creates inconsistent access to services for families across the State.

18082.1(b)(1) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Too prescriptive. Allow for contractors own policies. Suggest that parents are notified on the last day or end of their 12 month eligibility period of their need to recertify within 90 days.

RejectThe specificity of "30 days" ensures consistent implementation across the state. The CDE believes that allowing contractors to develop policies about recertification creates inconsistent access to services for families across the State.

Proposed Section


18082.1(b)(1)18410.1(b)(1)18425.1(b)(1)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Include, "in their preferred language". RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.

Proposed Section


18082.1(b)(1)(A)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Include ", and that services may be terminated if the parent does not recertify by the date specified in the notice;" at the end of (A).


Proposed Section


18082.1(b)(1)(D)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Include another subsection that states: "Notification shall include that the recertification appointment must be scheduled at a time and location that is convenient and safe for the parent, and may take place via phone call or other technology if the parent prefers;"

To ensure in order to avoid requiring that the parent take time off from work or a work activity or come in-person, risking exposure to COVID-19 or other communicable diseases/viruses.


Proposed Section


18082.1(b)(1)(F)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Remove "optional" for email address. In this day and age, and given the work schedules of parents attempting to communicate with their worker, a way to have asynchronous communication is essential. A place should be provided on all CDE and contractor forms where an email address may be provided.



As proposed, the term “reviewing” creates the requirement that an immediate action that a family be immediately recertified or denied. 4Cs suggests replacing “after reviewing the completed application and documentation contained in the family data file” with “within 30 days of parent signature of recertification.”

The language should match the language on the Application to read “approve or deny”.

RejectThe CDE believes the language used does not need further clarification because it does not require contractors to certify immediately.

Proposed Section


18082.1(b)(3)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Include, "in their preferred language" and "and notify of any change in family fee, if applicable,"

It is important that families receive a NOA that allows them to understand the basis of their family fee and to allow them to appeal that determination.


18082.1(e) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputThe highlighted language is unnecessary.

RecommendationRecommend inserting “contractor’s policies” after “regulation” and removing “even if disqualifying information is discovered during the preliminary collection of documentation for recertification”.

RejectThe language "Except as otherwise provided for in law or regulation" ensures that any other law or regulation that allows for disenrollment still applies. This includes regulations that allow for contractors to determine additional policies that could justify disenrollment.

The language "even if disqualifying information is discovered during the preliminary collection of documentation for recertification" is a federal requirement and therefore cannot be deleted.

Proposed Section


18082.1(e) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

CommentToo prescriptive. There might be other instances. Allow for contractors own policies here.


18082.1(e)(2) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(2) When the parent changes residency outside of California, as reported by the parent; or

CommentSuggestion included consistent with the above suggestion, as this information is sometimes inaccurately reported by the provider

AcceptedThe CDE added the language, "as reported by the parent" to ensure accuracy when disenrolling families.

18082.1(e)(2) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputThis language references only a residency change outside of California.


RejectThe language "Except as otherwise provided for in law or regulation" ensures that any other law or regulation that allows for disenrollment still applies. This includes regulations that allow for contractors to determine additional policies that could justify disenrollment. Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 98.21(a)(5) only limits the exception for disenrollment to a residency change outside the state. A residency change within the state does not affect a family’s 12-month eligibility therefore the CDE will not be addressing those concerns in these regulations, technical assistance will be provided to contractors.

Proposed Section


18082.1(e)(2) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

This language references only a residency change outside of California. There is also a need to include language regarding a residency change into another agency service area or county; transfer issues, and how to dis/continue services within a recertification period. Contractors should be allowed to terminate if every effort has been made to transfer parent, but has not been successful.

RejectTitle 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 98.21(a)(5) only limits the exception for disenrollment to a residency change outside the state. A residency change within the state does not effect a family’s 12-month eligibility therefore the CDE will not be addressing those concerns in these regulations.


InputThe word “invalidates” is vague and complicates this regulation. Does this mean the parent would have had to be completely ineligible? A parent could submit falsified wage stubs to reduce a parent fee. Upon review, the parent’s approved need is correct and the parent is still income eligible using the true income.

RecommendationEnd the proposed language after the word “fraud”. Remove “that invalidates the initial certification or recertification”.

RejectThe language "that invalidates the initial certification or recertification" is a federal requirement and therefore cannot be deleted.


(4) When the parent voluntarily requests to self-dis-enroll.

CommentSuggestion addition, as there are instances where it is in the parent’s best interest to dis-enroll from the program.

RejectParents are always able to voluntarily make changes to their certified schedule. This regulation does not restrict families from making the choice to stop receiving services.

Proposed Section


18082.1(g) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(g) The contractor shall make every effort to make the recertification process convenient for families by providing early morning, evening, and/or weekend appointments, or appointments at alternative locations as needed. The contractor may use technology to complete the recertification process if there is no reasonable way for the family to complete the process in person.

CommentWe ask for removal of this text to be considerate of our current state of emergency and potential pandemics/states of emergency that could occur in the future.

Contractors should be able to use technology to complete the recert process as widely and necessary as possible to continue to serve families. By requiring or attempting to require families to complete the recertification process in person we are asking families to take time off from work, school, etc. to comply with paperwork when it can easily be done using other means of technology as is being currently done via email, mail, fax, etc

RejectThe CDE does not believe that the language, "if there is no reasonable way for the family to complete the process in person" would limit contractors or families during a state of emergency, or require families to take time off of work or school to complete the recertification process. If it is not reasonable for the family to recertify in person then the contractor may use other means to recertify the family.

18082.1(g) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputLanguage of “no reasonable way” is unnecessary and restrictive. What is convenient for the family is on-line recertifications.

RecommendationEnd the proposed language after the word “process”. Remove “if there is no reasonable way for the family to complete the process in person”.

RejectThe CDE does not believe that the language, "if there is no reasonable way for the family to complete the process in person" is too restrictive. If it is not reasonable for the family, as determined by the family, to recertify in person then the contractor may use other means to recertify the family.

Proposed Section


18082.1(g) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

This language creates burdens and costs to agencies and families and could create a health and safety issue for agencies where fewer employees will be around and in areas that may be isolated.

Regulating contractors' open days and hours is excessive, creates an excessive burden, and most importantly, is unnecessary. Most contractors are already extremely flexible with their appointment times and allow children to be brought in with parents. It is not in a contractor's interest to make the recertification process harder on families.

RejectThe option of extended and/or weekend hours is included, in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations section 98.21(d) as an acceptable family-friendly mechanism to ensure families are not required to unduly disrupt their schedule in order to recertify eligibility. There is no restriction on alternative locations or other electronic means.

18082.1(g)18410.1(g)18425.1(g)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Require contractors to use technology, and add "including a telephone call". Remove "if there is no reasonable way for the family to complete the process in person". We cannot think of a good reason to require a parent to recertify in-person. Requiring a parent to recertify in-person is many times inconvenient, can put their job at-risk, and unsafe, especially in light of COVID-19. Requiring a parent to come in seems patriarchal and unnecessary.


Proposed Section


18082.1(e) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

For consistency and clarity add “(4) Abandonment of care and (5) Parent request and (6) Delinquent fees.”

RejectThe language "Except as otherwise provided for in law or regulation" ensures that any other law or regulation that allows for disenrollment still applies. This includes regulations that allow for contractors to determine additional policies that justify disenrollment.


18082.2(a)(3)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Include, "In their preferred language". RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.

Proposed Section


18082.2(b)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Change "threshold" to "limit". RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.

Proposed Section




Add, "to the parents" after Notice of Action. RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.

18082.2(b)(1) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

Suggestion to consider removing the requirement for families to be informed in writing if they are not over income. Families often submit income for purposes of recalculation of family fees, and when recalculated, it is determined it would increase the family fees, so no action is taken and the income is filed away (and the parent is notified over the phone and the communication is documented in a case note). It seems that it should be an option for the same process to be taken when a family submits income for potential ineligibility and is found to still be eligible (notification over the phone).

RejectThis provision protects both parents and contractors from miscommunication and provides transparency to families.

Proposed Section


18082.2(a) CDSS (See Letter #8)

CDSS (See Letter #8) concurs with the importance of providing parents with information so they can fully understand their responsibility for reporting income when it exceeds the threshold for continued eligibility.

No response needed as this comment does not suggest a change.

18082.2(a)(1) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

This requirement is unnecessary and burdensome. Parents sign the income calculation at their appointment and have access to their family data file should they need a copy. Additionally, if a parent has concerns with an income calculation, the parent can ask or appeal if issued a Notice of Action (NOA).

RejectThis provision provides transparency to families by notifying them how their income is calculated; therefore, families can better understand when they are required to report their income.

18082.2(a)(2) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputSince “Schedule of Income Ceiling eligibility table” is a new term/reference, recommend that it be defined under definitions. Feedback from staff has been that families often dispose of copies of the income chart. Families don’t find that the chart in its entirety useful.

RecommendationRemove “Provide the parent with a copy” and amend with “Inform the parent...”

RejectThis is necessary to ensure that families are not held responsible for reporting information that has not been clearly explained to them and to ensure that regulations are consistently implemented.

The Schedule of Income Ceiling Eligibility table is a document that is updated and issued through a Management Bulletin each year; therefore, the CDE does not believe a definition is necessary for clarity.


This is unnecessary and too prescriptive. Parents already receive the income ceiling that relates to their family in proposed 18082.2 (a) (3). Adding more documents to what they are given is unnecessary. This could be provided upon request and is publicly available.


Proposed Section



InputChanges cannot be made to increase the family’s fees during the eligibility period. The parent may request a decrease in the family’s fees which contractors would notify the family by the Notice of Action. Having the above requirement for contractors is unnecessary and burdensome.

RecommendationRemove the language in (b)(1) in its entirety.



This requirement is unnecessary. 4Cs recommends striking “in writing.”



This section is confusing and addresses two separate items.

First, 4Cs recommends consistency in time requirements and to always use business days, not calendar days.4Cs recommends changing the language to “or the parent fails to provide the documentation as requested by the contractor within 20 business days”

Define “disenroll.”

RejectThe CDE believes 15 calendar days is a sufficient amount of time for families to provide documentation requested by the contractor. To ensure consistent application throughout the State, calendar days are used rather than business days which can be subjective to the business.

The CDE does not believe that a definition of "disenroll" is necessary and technical assistance can be provided by the CDE to any contractor that is not sure what disenroll means.

Proposed Section


18082.2 Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

The language [in this section] as written is very confusing to decipher especially as it may relate to those families with fluctuating income. Clarity is also needed to specify if language applies to children removed by CPS, change in custody status, and foster care changes. Further, this is another area where the family could also be electronically notified.

RejectThe language "When a family is initially certified or recertified on the basis of income eligibility..." clarifies that this section only applies to families that are eligible for services because they are income eligible, and families enrolled based on other eligibility categories do not need to report if their income exceeds the maximum threshold.

The requirement is that the parent receives the notification "in writing" does not preclude the contractor from using electronic means to do so.

18082.3(c)18410.1(c)18425.1(c)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add, "following the date of the request" at the end of (c). Many contractors and centers do not allow the parent to submit employment information directly. Instead, they have the parent sign the authorization for the employer to provide the requested documentation directly to the contractor. It would be unfair to impose an employer’s delay on the parent. If the information is received within 30 days of request, the family fee should be adjusted retroactive to 10 days following the request. This is consistent with how documentation to support an earlier request is handled in CalFresh and CalWORKs, among other programs. Separately, parents should not be forced to tell their employer they receive child care assistance. This a violation of privacy and patriarchal. Parents should be able to submit employer documentation themselves, without any employer involvement.


Proposed Section


18082.3(d)(4)18425.1(d)(4)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add, "unless the family voluntarily requests a change pursuant to section [insert section number]." to the end of (d)(4).



Suggestion to reconsider this and (1) below. When the certified schedule is updated, the child care provider is made aware of the new approved hours, and may enroll other children to fill the other timeslots previously held by the child. By informing the parent that they can still continue to bring the enrolled child pursuant to the original certified schedule, the contractor places a burden on the child care provider to hold the slot available for the child in the event that they choose to continue using the schedule that they have requested to no longer use.

RejectThe intention of this requirement is for the contractor to inform the family that they are not required to reduce their certified schedule just because their need has changed, and for the parent to acknowledge that they are choosing to reduce their services anyway. Once a family chooses to reduce their certified schedule they will need to provide documentation to increase it again and are subject to the provider's space available.

Proposed Section


18082.3(f)(1) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

Suggestion to reconsider this and (2) above. When the certified schedule is updated, the child care provider is made aware of the new approved hours, and may enroll other children to fill the other timeslots previously held by the child. By informing the parent that they can still continue to bring the enrolled child pursuant to the original certified schedule, the contractor places a burden on the child care provider to hold the slot available for the child in the event that they choose to continue using the schedule that they have requested to no longer use.

AcceptThe CDE added language to clarify that the intention of this requirement is for the contractor to inform the family that they are not required to reduce their certified schedule just because their need has changed, and for the parent to acknowledge that they are choosing to reduce their services anyway. Once a family chooses to reduce their certified schedule, they will need to provide documentation to increase it again and are subject to the provider's space available.

18082.1(f)(1)18410.1(f)(1)18425.1(f)(1)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Include, "In their preferred language". RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.

Proposed Section


18082.3(b)(2) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

There is a lack of clarity and reference for use of the 10 business days. There is concern about the need for this language. Contractors already have a process in place to support voluntary changes from families. Having the 10 business days noted above may create a conflict with other areas of law that reference a 14-day notice period. Inconsistent day requirements could potentially lead to administrative errors and the potential to error funding.

Finally, questions came up from the field about real day situations where families do not provide adequate information to make the change. In such situations, to include the word “adequate” would allow contractors the opportunity to develop operational best practices to realize the most beneficial outcomes for families and children.

RejectThe requirement for the contractor to issue a notice of action within 10 business days of receiving the information does not conflict with the requirement to notify families with a notice of action 14-19 days before the effective date of the change. The 10-day requirement ensures that contractors respond to families' requests in a timely manner.

Proposed Section


18082.3(e) and (f)

Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

Requiring a hand written communication is burdensome, archaic and does not reflect current laws and more widely use electronic communications that satisfy the same and more integrity of the hand written word. Cross-reference California Corporations Code 5079 5 that states “Written” or “in writing” includes facsimile, telegraphic, and other electronic communication as authorized by this code, including an electronic transmission by a corporation that satisfies the requirements of Section 20.

[The comment now cites multiple laws signed allowing electronic documentation and electronic signatures as evidence that the regulations should be changed]

Respectfully submitted input from the field noted, “The written requirement for a parent to voluntarily reduce their certified schedule is archaic, punitive and fiscally irresponsible. This is a hardship for families and implies that the contractor is somehow taking away benefits. Families do NOT like this Regulation. They do NOT understand why they can’t simply reduce their schedule without having to jump through several hoops that may (especially in rural communities) be very difficult to navigate.”

Reject The regulation does not require "hand written" communication as this comment suggests. The requirement of a "written" request does not preclude the parent from using electronic means to do so.

18082.3(a), (e)–(f)

CDSS (See Letter #8)

Recommendation: In (e)(1) and (e)(2), CDE should add that a parent shall submit a “verbal, written or electronic request” and that the parent acknowledge “verbally, in writing, or electronically”

RejectThe requirement of a "written" request does not preclude the parent from using electronic means to do so. Requiring a written request protects both parents and contractors from miscommunication.

Proposed Section


18082.3(d)(1)–(3)


Section 2 contradicts section 3, are we allowed to take 10 days to process from receipt of make it effective immediately

RejectThe requirements in subsections (d)(2) and (d)(3) do not contradict each other. Subsection (d)(2) requires the contractor to review the submitted documentation and make a determination if the family is eligible to increase their certified schedule within 10 business days. Once the contractor makes the determination, they are required to issue a notice of action as required by subsection (d)(3) stating that the change can be effective immediately if the family is eligible to increase the certified schedule.


InputFamilies should be able to call their case worker and the case worker could ask the subsequent questions. Having this requirement be in writing is a barrier for families.

RecommendationRecommend that this language not be prescriptive to written form but allow for other modes of communication that best serves the needs of the family.

RejectThe requirement of a "written" request does not preclude the parent from using electronic means to do so to reduce barriers. Requiring a written request protects both parents and contractors from miscommunication.

Proposed Section



InputFamilies should not have to acknowledge in writing their understanding. Their case worker should be able to document in case notes that the parent was informed of their right.

RecommendationRemove “in writing” and recommend language that states contractors shall advise parents that they may retain their current certified schedule. Parents understand that any change made at their request becomes their new certified schedule and will replace any other certificates/certified schedules.


18082.3(f) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputAs proposed, this language can create a barrier for families. If a family voluntarily requests a reduction in services, the agency should be able to receive the request in a format easiest for the family. A family should be able to call their caseworker. For any such change, a NOA would be issued.

RecommendationRemove “written” to allow the most flexibility for parents. Recommend that this language mirror that in §18120 similar to appeals.

RejectRequiring a written request protects both parents and contractors from miscommunication.

18082.3(f)(1) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputCase workers should be able to document in case notes the conversation with the parent.

RecommendationRemove “in writing” and recommend “contractors shall advise parents of their right to continue to bring the enrolled child pursuant to the original certified schedule”.

RejectRequiring written documentation protects both parents and contractors from miscommunication.

Proposed Section


18083(a)–(e) CDSS (See Letter #8)

Need criteria – conflicts with CDSS (See Letter #8)’ immediate and continuous eligibility. RecommendationCDE should make the following changes: Revise section (e) the reasons for needing services to eliminate the following: (4) the parent is employed; (5) The parent is seeking employment; (6) The parent is enrolled in vocational training; or (7) The parent is enrolled in educational programs, etc.

Also, (b) should be changed to all children “included in the family size”. Children over 18 who are in high school can still be counted in the family size with documentation and children with documented severe handicaps and/or exceptional needs can be included much longer

RejectThese need categories in alignment with Education Code section 8263 and are applicable to early learning and care programs operated pursuant to the Child Care and Development Services Act, therefore they cannot be eliminated from this regulation.

Once a person included in the family size turns 18 years old, they are an adult regardless of the circumstances of that person (i.e. in high school, or exceptional needs). If the family chooses to keep this adult in the family size, the adult's income must be calculated for eligibility, and they must also have a need for services, if applicable.

18083(b) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Would we not need this information for children over the age of 18 meeting the definition of exceptional needs, or engaged in continuous education and thus included in the family size? This direction is inconsistent with existing definitions that are not changing.

RejectOnce a person included in the family size turns 18 years old, they are an adult regardless of the circumstances of that person (i.e., in high school, or exceptional needs). If the family chooses to keep this adult in the family size, the adult's income must be calculated for eligibility, and they must also have a need for services, if applicable.


For consistency and clarity rewrite to, “The maximum number of hours”.

AcceptThe CDE accepted this change to add "maximum".

Proposed Section


18083(d) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

Recommendation: Changing “basis” to “bases” since multiple reasons may apply.

RejectWhile a family may qualify for services under multiple eligibility criterion, the family only will only be certified with one. For example, a family may be experiencing homelessness and be income eligible, however the contractor will only certify them as either eligible on the basis of income eligibility or on the basis of experiencing homelessness.

18083(d) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Parents can have more than one Eligibility. 4Cs suggests replacing “which may be either” with “which may be one or more of the following”

RejectWhile a family may qualify for services under multiple eligibility criterion, the family only will only be certified with one. For example, a family may be experiencing homelessness and be income eligible, however the contractor will only certify them either on the basis of income eligibility or on the basis of experiencing homelessness.

Proposed Section


18083(f)(1) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(f) Employment, or vocational training, or educational program information for the 20 parent(s) including name and address of employer(s) or training institution(s) and days and hours of employment or training, if applicable shall include:(1) Name and phone number of the employer or contact person;(2) Name and address of the business, vocational training, or educational program; and (3) Days and hours of employment, enrollment in vocational training, or an educational program, as applicable.

CommentIt is unclear as to the reason we would need to include the employer’s phone number or contact person name on the application for services. Suggestion to remove this, as it should be sufficient to include the name and address, as listed in (2) below. (And contact information can be included on the need documents separately from the application for services.)

Reject In order for contractors to verify the documentation the contractor must have this information.

18083(f)(3) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

For consistency and clarity, change this to “maximum days and hours”. Maximizing a family’s benefit is most beneficial.

RejectThis recommendation was rejected because this information is used in determining the approved schedule for the family.

18083(h) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

Recommendation: Spell out the information in this cite rather than having it just referenced.

RejectCiting the Code of Federal Regulations rather than the specific requirements reduces the administrative burden to update regulations any time the federal regulations change.

Proposed Section


18083(i)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Delete (i). CA Educ. Code sections 8263 et seq. and the CCDBG Act of 2014 do not require parents to sign this statement under “penalty of perjury.” Accordingly, this regulation goes beyond the reach of statute. One can be found “guilty” of the crime of penalty of perjury if they are found to have knowingly provide false information. This language potentially subjects parents to needing to defend themselves in a court of law if they provide misinformation, knowingly or unknowingly. We highly suggest alternative, non-criminalizing language such as, “To the best of my knowledge, I believe all the information I have provided on this form to be true at the time and date of signing.” This comment applies throughout the regulations that require signature under “penalty of perjury,” particularly those that are not required by statute.


Proposed Section


18083(k)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add (k) Social security numbers for parents or children shall not be requested or obtained.


18083(h) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Guidance will be needed here for contractors to be able to comply.


18083(b) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

This line item states the application shall include names and birth dates for children under 18. Suggest that this be changed to all children “included in the family size”. Children over 18 still in high school can still be counted in the family size with documentation and children with documented severe handicaps and/or exceptional needs can be included much longer.


Proposed Section



Too constricting, contractors may have policies in place to require additional information in some cases. Contractor should have the flexibility to require additional documentation within reason, e.g. if there are fraud concerns or the documentation provided inconsistent information.

Do not strike (b) If the information provided by the parent is insufficient, the contractor shall request any additional documentation necessary from subdivision (a) above to verify the family composition and family size.

RejectThe addition of (a)(2) is necessary to ensure alignment with the provisions of Education Code section 8263(a)(2), as amended by Senate Bill 828, chapter 29, Statutes of 2016.

Subsection (b) was stricken because it gave a contractor the right to request any additional documentation the contractor felt was necessary to establish family size, which resulted in inconsistent application for families throughout the state.



Include "The form must explain what to sign the document “under penalty of perjury” means." at the end of (a)(2).

While CA Educ. Code section 8263(a)(3) requires this language, we do not agree with it for the reason set forth above. If this language is included here, we urge the application form to include a plain language definition of “penalty of “perjury” as this term is legalese and some people don’t’ know the implications of signing a document under penalty of perjury. A sample definition could be: “By signing this statement, you swear it to be true, to the best of your knowledge. You could be found guilty of the crime of perjury if you lie on purpose about the presence of absence of the child’s other parent.”


Proposed Section




Including “such as, formal or informal custodial family arrangements or foster care,” further confuses contractors that they must take income into account for eligibility purposes. If a child is in foster care, no income should be taken into account. Many times when a child is in “informal custodial family arrangements,” they qualify for at-risk status, and in which case, no income should be taken into account.


18083.1(b) CDSS (See Letter #8)

Need criteria – conflicts with CDSS (See Letter #8)’ immediate and continuous eligibility. Recommendation: CDE should make the following changes: Revise EDC Section 8263(a)(1)(B) to include that the parent is a CalWORKs cash aid recipient.

RejectThe CDE does not have the ability to revise Education Code section 8263(a)(1)(B) in these regulations.


This does not apply to Part Day CSPP contracts. RejectThe CDE recognizes that this provision does not apply to part-day California State Preschool Program (CSPP), however Education Code section 8235(b) is clear that the need component does not apply to part-day CSPP families therefore additional clarification in regulation is not necessary at this time.

Proposed Section


18084(a) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

This should read "shall provide documentation of total countable ongoing income”

RejectThe determination if the income is ongoing or not does not change the amount of the total countable income, but rather it changes the way the income is calculated for purposes of income eligibility and family fees therefore this change is not necessary in (a).

18084(a)(1)(A)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


To our knowledge, no state or federal child care eligibility law requires a parent to provide an authorization for the contractor to contact the parent’s employer. This requirement is an invasion of the parent’s privacy and patriarchal. Most parents can provide proof regarding their employment without involvement of their employer. This requirement should be optional for only the rare instances where a parent’s employer needs to provide proof of employment.


Proposed Section


18084(a)(1)(B)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


We appreciate CDE’s intention to make sure that parents are not disadvantaged by this option to choose either of the two month’s wages just prior to (re)certification. We believe this language ensures that will happen: The contractor shall use the month’s wages with the lower amount from either of the two-month window immediately preceding the initial certification.


18084(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3)

Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputFor consistency for all families regardless of the type of employment they have, require a minimum of one full month up to no more than 12 months of income if it would benefit the parent (i.e. decrease fees).

RecommendAdd a definition of “month” for purposes of allowing maximum flexibility for parents.

RejectThe CDE does not believe that a definition of "month" is necessary to implement this regulation. Further, defining "month" would not allow for more flexibility for parents, but would restrict them to a specific number of days.

Proposed Section



This should read “documentation necessary to establish current and ongoing income”

RejectThe addition of "ongoing" would be confusing, as the sentence is referencing the requirement for the parent to provide documentation that establishes their current income eligibility. With 12-month eligibility there is no need to determine "ongoing" eligibility because families are considered eligible until recertification.

18084(b)(3) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputAlthough bank statements can be difficult to decipher, we find that this is an easy option for families to submit income verification.

RecommendationAdding “or other social media” after “website” and keeping bank statements as an option to allow families flexibility.

RejectTo provide clarity and consistency in the field across contractors, the language was intended to be restrictive and not include "or other social media". Bank statements were removed because there are inconsistencies between contractors reviewing the statements. This purpose of this deletion is to ensure consistent implementation statewide.

18084(b)(3) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Too prescriptive. Recommend first line reading “When the parent is self-employed, may obtain...” to allow for contractor’s current practices, if applicable.

RejectThis language ensures there is consistent application of this provision statewide.

18084(b)(4) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputMany agencies use this regulation reference to support in instances where documentation has been supplied and appears fraudulent. Although oftentimes parents are asked to give other documentation, this existing language helps to support the validity of that documentation before approving the family income eligible.

RecommendationKeep this language.

RejectThis provision permitted a contractor to request additional documentation and thus imposed an undue burden on the parent. This is necessary in order to make implementation equitable across the state and streamline the process for families.

Proposed Section


18084(b)(4) (struck)


It is recommended that this language be continued. Many agencies use this regulation reference to support in instances where documentation has been supplied and appears fraudulent. Although oftentimes parents are asked to give other documentation, this existing language helps to support the validity of that documentation before approving the family income eligible.

RejectThis provision permitted a contractor to request additional documentation and thus imposed an undue burden on the parent. This is necessary in order to make implementation equitable across the state and streamline the process for families.

18084(d) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputCalWORKs recipients should be exempt from having to provide income documentation. They are not assessed a fee, the basis of eligibility is current CalWORKs cash aid recipient.

RecommendationAdding language that states current CalWORKs recipients should be exempt from having to provide income documentation. Suggested language may be: (e) If the parent is a current CalWORKs recipient, and verified as such by the contractor, the parent will not be required to provide documentation of countable income until such time the parent is no longer receiving CalWORKs cash aid at the initial certification or recertification.

RejectThis section only applies to families that are being certified as eligible on the basis of income eligibility or if the family is assessed a family fee. If a family is certified eligible on the basis of receiving CalWORKs cash aid this section would not apply to their enrollment process.

Proposed Section



It is recommended to add some wording in here that states that active CalWORKs recipients should be exempt from having to provide income documentation. They are not assessed a fee and the basis of eligibility is not income eligible. Suggested language may be: (e) If the parent is a current CalWORKs recipient, and verified as such by the contractor, the parent will not be required to provide documentation of countable income until such time the parent is no longer receiving CalWORKs cash aid.

RejectThis section only applies to families that are being certified as eligible on the basis of income eligibility or if the family is assessed a family fee. If a family is certified eligible on the basis of receiving CalWORKs cash aid this section would not apply to their enrollment process.

18084.1(b) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Too prescriptive, agencies should be able to utilize a worksheet that meets the requirements but not a specific one only. Recommended language: “use an income calculation worksheet.”

RejectThere is no requirement for the contractor to use a specific income calculation sheet. This provision only requires that the income calculation sheet specifies the information required by subsections (b)(1) through (b)(3).

18084.1(b)–(c) CDSS (See Letter #8)

RecommendationCDE should make the following changes: Instead of “the total countable income from the preceding 12 months”, say “from the preceding 1-12 months” because many parents may not have 12 months of income.

RejectEquity dictates that families whose income is not stable not be penalized or treated more favorably, depending upon the timing of the receipt of the income, and thus there is a need to collect more documentation to support the contractors determination. Further, requiring 12 months of income for all families that have fluctuating income ensures this provision is implemented consistently statewide.


This is redundant if paystubs already indicate pay frequency or are stamped. Unnecessary to add this to the worksheet as well.

RejectThe information required on the income calculation worksheet is necessary to ensure contractors are calculating the family's income correctly and provides transparency to families.

Proposed Section



Too prescriptive and confusing. RejectThe CDE does not believe this regulation is too prescriptive or confusing. The information required on the income calculation worksheet is necessary to ensure contractors are calculating the family's income correctly and provides transparency to families.

18084.1(c) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

Needs further clarification re: definition. Does this mean ALL self-employment income or just inconsistent and/or unstable self-employment income is considered “Income Fluctuation”?

RejectThe use of semicolons in subsection (c) clarifies that this only applies to families with inconsistent and/or unstable self-employment.


Suggest 1 month up to 12 months. The reality of a family having 12 months is unrealistic for a variety of reasons: the simple fact they are ‘unstable’, they haven’t been doing this type of work for 12 months, they haven’t been at that job 12 months. This is punitive, unnecessary and is NOT Strength Based.

RejectEquity dictates that families whose income is not stable not be penalized or treated more favorably, depending upon the timing of the receipt of the income, and thus there is a need to collect more documentation to support the contractors determination. Further, requiring 12 months of income for all families that have fluctuating income ensures this provision is implemented consistently statewide.


Intermittent income take all and calculate an average; clarification regarding consecutive paystubs; what is the goal of the two months; what is the intent; burdensome; if you were working before but not currently. Also, language should be considered that states 4 consecutive weeks within the 2 months prior to the certification. That allows for a combination of stubs that are not specific to a calendar month but could be the last week of one month and the 3 weeks of the next to equal a full month

RejectThe income can be from either of the two months immediately preceding a determination of eligibility. For example, a parent may provide four weekly paystubs; however, they can be from any of the eight weeks prior to the certification.

Proposed Section


18084.1(c) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputAs previously stated, for consistency for all families regardless of the type of employment they have, require a minimum of one full month up to no more than 12 months of income if it would benefit the parent (i.e. decrease fees). Having the requirement that families with inconsistent and/or unstable employment or self-employment income produce 12 months of past income is burdensome, restrictive and not family friendly.

RecommendationRemove the language above in its entirety.

Reject Requiring 12 months of income for all families that have fluctuating income ensures this provision is implemented consistently statewide.

Proposed Section


18084.1(c) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

It is recommended this section be further simplified. There is a lot of risk for being non-compliant with the calculation of income any time an agency is having to pull intermittent income apart from the total gross to do a separate calculation (eg. overtime, bonuses). This is a manual process and carries a lot of risk for calculation errors. It's also very burdensome for a parent to collect 12 months of their previous income, especially if they have changed jobs, etc. It is recommended to have 3 categories:1)Stable income - collect 1 month's worth of paystubs within the 2 month window preceding the update 2) Migrant - collect 12 months of income and 3) Unpredictable (combine intermittent and unpredictable categories in to this new category)- collect 3 to 12 months. Start with 3 and if the parent disputes the average they have the option to submit up to 12.

Additionally, these sections do not really give any guidance as to how to address on how to calculate income when for example the parent comes in to recertify and has not received any pay check at their new job. Should an agency turn them away?

**It is suggested additional language such as: When due to new income or a recent change in existing income (such as a new job) and income documentation is not yet available, a reasonable estimation of income be used to complete an estimate and establish income eligibility off of an employment verification.

Reject1. The 2-month window allows the family to have more flexibility for the documentation that they choose to provide.

2 and 3. Requiring 12 months of income for all families that have fluctuating income ensures this provision is implemented consistently statewide. Equity dictates that families whose income is not stable not be penalized or treated more favorably, depending upon the timing of the receipt of the income, and thus there is a need to collect more documentation to support the contractors determination.

CDE does not believe this addition is necessary for families without an income history.

Proposed Section


Requiring 12 months is unrealistic for most. The proposed does not address any real-life variables –eg. new job, family does not have contact with previous employer, unable to obtain or has not worked 12 months, reality. This places undue barriers and discriminates against families who have any kind of fluctuation.

18084.1 (Struck introductory language)


InputRemoving the above language raises questions about what income is used to calculate total income. For example, if the parent came in to apply for services and received a disability check, but has since returned to work, and also received a paycheck, historically, disability was not counted. Would we now need to count income sources that no longer exist?

RecommendationFor clarity, do not remove, keep the language.

Reject in-partThe CDE did not accept this suggested language.

Accept in-partHowever, because there was a lack of clarity, we added language to specify what documentation the families who are unemployed should provide in Section 18084(a)(5).

18084.1 (Struck introductory language)


It is recommended for clarification the above be continued particularly the reference to “current and ongoing”. From an agency perspective, an example provided noted that if the parent came in to apply and received an advance, or disability check but has since returned to work and also received a paycheck the agency used to not count the disability. Would we now need to count income sources that no longer exist?

Reject in-partThe CDE did not accept this suggested language.

Accept in-partHowever, because there was a lack of clarity, we added language to specify what documentation the families who are unemployed should provide in Section 18084(a)(5).

Proposed Section




Replace, "When the employer refuses or fails to provide requested documentation or when the parent states a request for documentation would adversely affect the parent's employment," with this language: "When a parent does not have a payroll check stub, independent letter from the employer, or their record of wages issued by the employer,".



Part Day CSPP does not require a need criterion. RejectThe language, "Except as otherwise provided for in law" ensures that part-day CSPP families are not required to have a need for services.

Proposed Section



Delete the word “capable” as that is a judgement word and is open to interpretation.

RejectThe CDE does not believe it is necessary to delete the word "capable." If a parent is available at home but states that they are not capable of providing care to their child(ren), then the parent would be required to provide documentation from a legally qualified professional to verify parental incapacity and the legally qualified professional would determine if the parent is capable of providing care to their child, not the contractor, therefore it is not open to interpretation.


Recommendation: CDE should make the following changes: (d) a parent shall provide a “verbal, written, or electronic request.”

CDSS (See Letter #8)’ decision on “able and available” is currently pending. CDSS (See Letter #8) must determine whether to grant child care to two-parent families, even if there is a parent in the family who is able and available to care for the child(ren), before providing a recommendation to CDE on this matter.

RejectThe requirement to provide a request in writing protects both the parent and the contractor from miscommunication.


RecommendationRemove the word “capable” as that is a judgement word and is open to interpretation.


Proposed Section


18085.5(b)–(e) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

There is language in this section that lacks clarity and creates a more burdensome and lesser standard than what currently exists in California statutes. Further, a parent should have the right to be able to request a decrease of the certified need regardless of documentation.

AcceptThe CDE deleted the language, "based on provided documentation of need" to provide clarity that a family does not have to provide documentation to prove that their need is reduced in order to reduce their services.

18085.5(d) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(d) At any time during the 12-month certification period, a parent may request to decrease the certified schedule based on provided documentation of need. Requests for decrease in hours shall be provided in writing or verbally. In such a case, the contractor shall inform the family of the right to maintain the current certified schedule.

CommentThis is an ongoing frustration for parents when they contact their case management specialist. If the request can be noted in case notes, should AP agencies still insist in receiving the request in writing?

RejectRequiring a written request protects both parents and contractors from miscommunication and provides transparency to the family.

Proposed Section


18085.5(d) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputHaving the requirement that the parent submit a written request is burdensome on families. In addition, this language is not consistent throughout the proposed regulations. If the parent wishes to request a decrease in the hours on the child care certificate, why do they need to submit documentation that supports this request? If the parent wishes to request a decrease in the family fee, income documentation must be provided.

RecommendationA thorough review of the entire proposed regulation package for consistency in language. Recommend to revise language that contractors shall advise parents that they may retain their current service level. Remove the reference that the request be in writing. Parents understand that any change made at their request becomes their new service level and will replace any other certificates/service level. Additionally, the parent would receive a Notice of Action of Change for such requests.

RejectRequiring a written request protects both parents and contractors from miscommunication and provides transparency to the family.

Proposed Section


18085.5(d)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Does this mean that a parent who requests a decrease in hours must submit paperwork from their work or school to justify the decrease in hours? If so, it should be deleted. The only required documentation for a decrease in hours should be a written request from the parent. Also, state in (d) "that any requested decrease is voluntary".


18085.5 Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

As proposed, this language in this section does not allow a Stage 1 family to transfer into Stage 2 without one of the approved need statuses (CPS, At risk, employed, seeking employment, family experiencing homelessness, seeking permanent housing, vocational training, educational program, medical incapacitation).

If Counties are no longer required to determine child care eligibility based on an activity that is tied to a Welfare to Work plan how does a family seamlessly transfer into Stage 2?

RejectSpecific regulations related to CalWORKs transfers from Stage 1 can be found in chapter 19.5.

Proposed Section


18086(a) CDSS (See Letter #8)

Potential conflict with ICE – do not need to document days/hours of activity. Child care is authorized full-time unless the family requests part-time care. Recommendation: CDE should make the following changes: eliminate the requirement to document the parent’s days and hours of employment.

Also, with regard to (B), CDE should allow a variety of communication to suffice to verify the days and hours of employment, including written, telephonic, and electronic.

RejectThese regulations are in alignment with how services are authorized for families receiving services pursuant to the Child Care and Development Services Act. Families are not authorized for full-time automatically, instead families must have a need for services to receive full-time services.

Subsection (b)(3)(A) allows for the contractor to collect a written statement from the employer, which can include through electronic means.

18086(b)(1)–(2) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputThe highlighted language needs clarification. Pay stubs would typically indicate the total hours worked and paid, which could be different than what a person is scheduled to work/employed for. It is rare that a wage stub would show the actual days and times worked/paid. An Employment Verification form would typically indicate the days of hours of employment or what the employee may be scheduled to work.

RejectAdditional clarification is not needed because subsection (b)(3) explains what the contractor should do when the pay stubs do not meet the criteria in subsections (b)(1) or (b)(2).

18086(b)(2) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

It is recommended to specify either a more explicit definition or to include “based on the definition provided by the contractor” in the language of this section to make explicit that it is the contractor’s prerogative to create the parameters for a general correlation. (2) above, amend to reflect “...period, as long as the hours generally correlate with the parent’s requested days and hours of need number of hours needed each week."

RejectThe CDE does not believe that additional clarification is needed to define "correlation." The intention of this provision is meant to generally support the days and hours requested by the parent, not only limit the parent to the specific number of hours indicated on the pay stub.

Proposed Section


18086(b)(3) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

It is inconsistent, confusing and contradictory that a contractor can “Telephone” the employer to verify need but cannot telephone/phone verify with a parent that they want to voluntarily decrease their certified schedule. Unfair practice and NOT Strength Based.

Further, to be consistent with language proposed previously, allow a variety of communication be available in addition to telephone inclusive of written and electronic.

RejectRequiring a written request protects both parents and contractors from miscommunication and provides transparency to the family.Subsection (b)(3)(A) allows for the contractor to collect a written statement from the employer, which can include through electronic means

18086(d)(2)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


We suggest clarifying that the sleep time is for parent and child. Sometimes parents prefer to leave a child for a few hours more in child care because they don’t want to wake the child in the middle of the night, and sometimes parents also need sleep directly after work.


Proposed Section


18086(d)(3)(A) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

RecommendationDelete the word “capable” as that is a judgement word and is open to interpretation.


18086(d)(3)(A) CDSS (See Letter #8)

Able and available issue is TBD at CDSS (See Letter #8). CDSS (See Letter #8) must determine whether to grant child care to two-parent families, even if there is a parent in the family who is able and available to care for the child(ren), before providing a recommendation to CDE on this matter.


18086(d)(3)(A) and (B)


This is repetitive from 18085.5 Documentation of Need: In General. Since this is not unique to Employment it does not need to be specifically listed here.

RejectThe sleep time provisions are specified in each section where sleep time is available for families. This is done so there is clarity and consistent implementation of this provision across the state.


CDSS (See Letter #8) regs do not make this distinction.

RecommendationCDE should eliminate the requirement for the parent to provide this justification.

RejectThese regulations are in alignment with how services are authorized for families receiving services pursuant to the Child Care and Development Services Act. Families are required to have a need for services, and this provision ensures that the family does have a need for services.

Proposed Section


18086.1(c) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Parents should not be disqualified as eligible for services if they are a license-exempt provider. Allow for flexibility. There are times when a parent does not have space in the car, e.g. or school hours of the parent’s child does not allow for school pickup when serving as a license exempt provider. There may also be health and safety concerns if the license exempt provider is caring for a child with exceptional needs or behavioral issues.


18086.1(c) & (d)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


What is the rationale behind (c) and why is the standard different for assistants in (d)? Child care providers many times need child care while they work, like any other working parent. There are numerous instances where a licensed family child care provider would want child care outside their own family child care home, I.e., they want their child to attend preschool; socialize with children their own age; the child may have special needs and the child could benefit from a specialized child care setting, etc.


Proposed Section


18086.1 Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputThere is no mention what happens if, during the certification period, the parent becomes employed in the home or in a licensed family day care home.

RecommendationAdd language as to whether or not the no less than 12 months eligibility trumps employment in the home or in a licensed family child care home if such employment occurs within the certification period or if the family should be dis-enrolled. Not all families who work in the home or who are employed in a licensed family day care home are able to meet the criteria established.

RejectThe CDE does not believe additional language is necessary because families are not required to report changes in their employment during their 12-month eligibility period.


Potential conflict with ICE – full-time care is automatically authorized Recommendation: CDE should eliminate the 30 hours per week maximum and impose the 52.5 hours per week maximum. If a participant requests more than 52.5 hours per week (for example, if the participant has more than one job, or is working and attending school), their county worker should discuss authorizing additional child care hours with the participant on a case-by-case basis.



This section is addressing Need. It should not require a recertification for eligibility or this should be addressed under the Eligibility section instead of Need.

RejectThe CDE included this clarification that families seeking employment are entitled to 12 months of eligibility in this regulation to ensure contractors are implementing the rules of 12-month eligibility correctly.

Proposed Section




Include "their" between "having" and "eligibility". RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.


Input“based on enrollment in” can be interpreted that contractors would need to track when the parent became enrolled in the educational program.

RecommendationFor language consistency (see Vocational Training), suggest “based on need for educational programs”.

RejectThe provision does not require the contractor to track when the parent began the educational program, it requires the contractor to track when the family was initially certified on the basis of being enrolled in an educational program.

Proposed Section



Six years is not reasonable, many parents, if they are also working, take much longer than that to complete educational programs. Additionally, parents at times attend school intermittently which continues to count this limit against them.

This will require further guidance as to if this is retroactive to when the services began, or will the clock start ticking when the regulations become effective?

RejectWe disagree and believe limits are necessary and fair to ensure new families are able receive services. Training and technical assistance will be provided to contractors.

Proposed Section


18086.6(a)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


This 6 year limitation is not authorized by the statute. When Asm. Aguiar-Curry, author of AB 273, was asked if she would accept such a time limitation on the educational component, she declined to do so. All of the AB 273 analyses as the bill wended its way through the legislative process make clear that the bill would "clarify that engagement in English language and high school or high school equivalency educational programs meets criteria for establishing eligibility for subsidized child care programs." The SPI is required "to administer child care and development programs that offer a full range of services for eligible children from infancy to 13 years of age." We would at least want clarification that this limitation only applies to the ESL/GED component, and not if parent the parents plans to enroll or is enrolled in college. Many people take more than 6 years in combined ESL/GED and college to complete, esp. if attending part-time and working part time. According to a recent PPIC report, the college completion rate at CSU’s within 6 years has increased to about 57%****For the 2015 Graduation Initiative, CSU aimed to increase the overall six-year graduation rate to 54 percent and the six-year graduation rate of underrepresented minorities to 51 percent (CSUOfficeoftheChancellorn.d.a.). From 2009 to 2015, CSU raised its overall graduation rate from 51 percent to 57 percent, outpacing its initial goal. PPIC Report:https://www.ppic.org/publication/improving-college-graduation-rates-a-closer-look-at-california-state-university/


Proposed Section


18086.6(c) CDSS (See Letter #8)

Potential conflict with ICE – do not need to document days/hours of activity

RecommendationCDE should make the following changes: eliminate the requirement to document the parent’s enrollment in an educational program.

Also, align enrollment in educational programs to that of Seeking Employment, which has no time limit.

RejectThese regulations are in alignment with how services are authorized for families receiving services pursuant to the Child Care and Development Services Act. Families must have a need for services to receive full-time services. We believe these limits are necessary and fair to ensure new families are able receive services.

18086.6(c)(2) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(c) The parent shall provide documentation of the days and hours of enrollment in 1 an educational program, which shall include: (1) The name of the institution that is providing the instruction; (2) The parent’s current class schedule that is either an electronic print-out from the educational program or, if unavailable, a document that includes all of the following: (Suggested adding hyphen)

RejectThe suggested hyphen is already included in the regulations.

18086.6(c)(2) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputFlexibility is needed so that contractors don’t have to exhaust attempts to obtain the electronic printout before collecting the document with the requirements.

RecommendationA suggestion that would accommodate flexibility would be to include “and/or” before the “if unavailable”.

RejectThe CDE does not think that this addition is necessary. The inclusion of, "if unavailable" gives flexibility to the contractor to collect a different form of documentation.

Proposed Section



InputIt’s not clear why only online or televised instructional classes must be from an accredited training institution. Also, with the current COVID-19 pandemic, most colleges have moved to on-line learning.

RecommendationAll educational and vocational programs must be recognized and/or accredited. OR remove “accredited training institution” altogether to allow greater flexibility.

RejectThe CDE does not believe removing "accredited training institution" would add any benefit to the regulation. There is limited funding available to early learning and care services and therefore services are limited to families pursuing educational programs in an online or televised format from an accredited training institution.


A syllabus is often not provided for online classes. When it can be obtained, it usually is only after the class session starts which creates a period of time where child care services cannot be covered until the parent provides this document.

Specifically with the current pandemic, most school models are not in person classes so this will be come burdensome for all clients in the coming semester or longer.

RejectThe language, "Or other class documentation as applicable" provides flexibility for contractors to determine alternate documentation.

Proposed Section


18086.6(f)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Amend (f) to state that the parent qualifies for study or travel time and remove the statement that parents have to request study or travel time.


Proposed Section


18086.6(h), (i) and (j)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Remove all of (h), (i) and (j). None of these new restrictions were contained in the statutory amendment and do not further its purpose. It may be permissible in the vocational training section, but is not part of the eligibility provided under AB 273. We do not object to getting proof of the parent meeting a reasonable attendance threshold.


18086.6(j)(2) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputIn the spirit of no less than 12 months of eligibility where a parent could come on the program on day 1 and lose his or her employment on day 2 but can keep child care for certification period and in the next certification be approved under the need status of job seek with no limits on this need status certification to certification, we find the continuous restriction on parent students unfair.

RecommendationRemove the adequate progress verification requirement altogether.

RejectThese regulations provide families multiple attempts to meet the "adequate progress" requirement and therefore does not find this requirement unfair.

Proposed Section


18087(a) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

Based on the real world lives of the parents and families served in addition to the fact that most students take more than five years to complete and education program, it is punitive to impose a fixed six year timeline on subsidized families. For consistency and to reflect support a strength based policy for parents, align enrollment in educational programs to that of Seeking Employment which has no time limit.

Further, both 18086.6 and 18087 were separated into 2 different needs and both have service limitations of 6 years. Because of this, the interpretations of these regulations are that families can have 2 separate 6 year time limits with different start and end dates. Is this the intent of the regulations? If not, clarification is needed.

RejectWe believe these limits are necessary and fair to ensure new families are able receive services.

That interpretation is correct, and the CDE does not believe any further clarification is needed.

18087(a)(1) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputFor parents who are working and going to school, the length of time should be unlimited. It may take a parent 10+ years to complete a degree while also working, as they may be able to complete only 1-2 classes per semester.

RecommendationEliminate the six year reference.

RejectWe believe these limits are necessary and fair to ensure new families are able receive services.


Six year time limit should be allowed to be stopped or paused if and when a family reports they are no longer enrolled. There are many circumstances that can make a parent have to stop going to school.

RejectParents are always able to voluntarily make changes to their certified schedule. This regulation does not restrict families from making the choice to stop receiving services. The six-year limitation is in total, therefore if a parent stops services, the timeline does go on hold.

Proposed Section




Add (4) They have a disability and requested a reasonable accommodation based on their disability.


18087(c) CDSS (See Letter #8)

Potential conflict with ICE – do not need to document days/hours of activity Recommendation: CDE should make the following changes: eliminate the requirement to document the parent’s enrollment in vocational training.

Also, do not impose time limit on vocational training.

RejectThese regulations are in alignment with how services are authorized for families receiving services pursuant to the Child Care and Development Services Act. Families must have a need for services to receive services. We believe these limits are necessary and fair to ensure new families are able receive services.

Proposed Section



InputFlexibility is needed so that contractors don’t have to exhaust attempts to obtain the electronic printout before collecting the document with the requirements.

RecommendationA suggestion that would accommodate flexibility would be to include “and/or” before the “if unavailable”.

RejectThe CDE does not think that this addition is necessary. The inclusion of, "if unavailable" gives flexibility to the contractor to collect a different form of documentation.


InputIf this language is removed, then how will contractors know if the need is still current without these dates?

RejectWith 12-month eligibility, contractors are not required to know if the parent's need for services is still current until the time of recertification.

18087(e) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputIt’s not clear why only online or televised instructional classes must be from an accredited training institution. Also, with the current COVID-19 pandemic, most colleges have moved to on-line learning.

RecommendationAll educational and vocational programs must be recognized and/or accredited. OR remove “accredited training institution” altogether to allow greater flexibility.

RejectThe CDE does not believe removing "accredited training institution" would add any benefit to the regulation. There is limited funding available to early learning and care services and therefore services are limited to families pursuing educational programs in an online or televised format from an accredited training institution.

Proposed Section


18087(e) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

A syllabus is often not provided for online classes. When it can be obtained, it usually is only after the class session starts which creates a period of time where child care services cannot be covered until the parent provides this document.

Specifically with the current pandemic, most school models are not in person classes so this will be come burdensome for all clients in the coming semester or longer.

RejectThe language, "Or other class documentation as applicable" provides flexibility for contractors to determine alternate documentation.

18087(f)(2) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Travel time may be to study location as well as to the training location.

RejectTravel time is provided to families in order to get to the training location for the vocational program.

18087(f)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Remove the language that requires the parent to request study or travel time. The parent may not know they can request study time, and therefore, the onus should not be on the parent to ask for it. The standard amount of study time and travel time should be calculated into the hours of service need. Please restore the automatic study time calculation that is provided in Sec. 18086(f).


Proposed Section


18087(l) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputRecommend for clarity confirmation/clarification that the vocational goal requirement has been eliminated. §18078(y) implies that any training still needs to be linked to those outcomes. It is not clear what the contractor’s responsibility is, is any, to show that classes we approving will lead to these outcomes.

In regards to Vocational Training in general, there is no guidance on what or how contractors should approve child care and development services around classes that are waitlist. With no less than 12 months eligibility, it would seem that contractors should not approve when the parent is waitlisted for a class. This puts the parent in danger of not getting enrolled for the class due to no child care approved. If the parent is approved up front for the waitlist class, s/he may never get enrolled and contractors are left without the ability to update or change the parent’s service level.

RejectThe contractor’s responsibility is to ensure the parent makes adequate progress as described in subsection (h).Parents are always able to voluntarily make changes to their certified schedule. This regulation does not restrict families from requesting an in increase services.

18087(h)(2) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputIn the spirit of no less than 12 months of eligibility where a parent could come on the program on day 1 and lose his or her employment on day 2 but can keep child care for the eligibility period and in the next certification be approved under the need status of job seek with no limits on this need status certification to certification, we find the continuous restriction on parent students unfair.

RecommendationRemove the adequate progress verification requirement altogether.

RejectThese regulations provide families multiple attempts to meet the "adequate progress" requirement and therefore the CDE does not find this requirement unfair.

Proposed Section


18088* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


For reasons noted above and in our cover letter, we urge the department to refrain from using the word “incapacity” or “incapacitated.”



Potential conflict with ICE – maximum 50 hours per week. Recommendation: CDE should eliminate the 50 hours per week maximum and impose the 52.5 hours per week maximum. If a participant requests more than 52.5 hours per week (for example, if the participant has more than one job, or is working and attending school), their county worker should discuss authorizing additional child care hours with the participant on a case-by-case basis.

RejectThese regulations are in alignment with how services are authorized for families receiving services pursuant to the Child Care and Development Services Act. Families must have a need for services to receive services. The CDE believes these limitations are fair to ensure families that need access to services can receive them.



RejectThe CDE included that families certified on the basis of parental incapacity are entitled to 12 months of eligibility in this regulation to ensure that contractors are implementing the rules of 12-month eligibility correctly.

Proposed Section


18090(d)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


We urge CDE to allow families experiencing homelessness up to 50 hours of child care. These children are very likely experiencing trauma and would benefit from stable environment where they can thrive.


18090(e) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

Clarity is needed that AP contactors in accordance with MB 18-04 are not required to collect immunization records. Yet in Section 18081 above it contradicts that without citing reference.

RejectManagement Bulletin 18-04 is specific for families experiencing homelessness, therefore there are not contradicting requirements. Section 18081 does not require Alternative Payment contractors to collect immunizations for families experiencing homelessness, but does require them to collect records for children receiving license-exempt care in specific situations. This is needed in order to align with title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Proposed Section


18090(a) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

(a) In order to meet the eligibility requirements for a family experiencing homelessness, the family must obtain and provide documentation, which includes either of the following: (added comma)

AcceptThe CDE accepted this grammatical change.

18090(d) CDSS (See Letter #8)

Potential conflict with ICE – full-time care is automatically authorized Recommendation: CDE should eliminate the 30 hours per week maximum and impose the 52.5 hours per week maximum. If a participant requests more than 52.5 hours per week (for example, if the participant has more than one job, or is working and attending school), their county worker should discuss authorizing additional child care hours with the participant on a case-by-case basis.

RejectThese regulations are in alignment with how services are authorized for families receiving services pursuant to the Child Care and Development Services Act. Families must have a need for services to receive services. If families have a need for more than 30 hours of service, then they can submit additional documentation for another need criteria to increase the hours of service.

18090(d)

18091(a)(1)


RecommendationIt is restrictive to limit a family experiencing homelessness and seeking permanent housing to childcare for less than 30 hours per week. Strongly recommend “up to a total of 50 hours per week”.

RejectThese regulations are in alignment with how services are authorized for families receiving services pursuant to the Child Care and Development Services Act. Families must have a need for services to receive services. If families have a need for more than 30 hours of service then they can submit additional documentation for another need criteria to increase the hours of service.

Proposed Section


18090

18091


InputIn regards to these two sections, we believe that this population could be better supported by:

1. During times of disasters, many families experience homelessness. It seems necessary to have times of emergency regulations that exceed the time frames in these regulations.

2. Set a priority enrollment for the need of homelessness in cases of a natural disaster.

3. Homelessness of the child/family should change in priority.

RejectWhile the CDE does appreciate the desire to have regulations for emergency times, we do not feel it is in the best interest to include specifics for emergency situations in these regulations. Every emergency or disaster presents different challenges and therefore creating the same regulations for all emergency times may be more restrictive than helpful.

These regulations are aligned with the priorities set forth in Education Code section 8263.


This is inconsistent with Title 22, which requires certain documentation to be on file for enrolled children. This cannot be applied to all Title 5 program types and needs some flexibility as it may be impossible for the family to begin services immediately.

RejectThe CDE and the Department of Social Services have implemented provisions to allow this for contractors as this is a federal requirement.

18090(f) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Why is this the only Need section that mentions approving and denying services with a Notice of Action? Consistency is needed.

RejectThis section addresses both eligibility and need for families experiencing homelessness. This is the only section that mentions a Notice of Action because it is the only criteria that is both an eligibility and a need, therefore all instructions for certifying eligibility and need are contained in this section.

Proposed Section


18090 Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Why is Eligibility and Need combined here and nowhere else? Consistency needed.

4Cs supported CAPPA’s recommendations:1. Homelessness and Seeking Permanent

Housing be combined for a total of 50 hours per week.

2. Create emergency regulations for areas that have experienced disasters where families may remain homeless for longer having lost their homes in a disaster.

3. Set priority enrollment for Need for homelessness in case of natural disaster

RejectThis is the only section that combines need and eligibility because it is the only criteria that is both an eligibility criteria and a need criteria, therefore all instructions for certifying eligibility and need are contained in this section.

Parents are able to provide documentation to support as many need categories as they require in order to increase their certified schedule.

While the CDE does appreciate the desire to have regulations for emergency times, we do not feel it is in the best interest to include specifics for emergency situations in these regulations. Every emergency or disaster presents different challenges and therefore creating the same regulations for all emergency times may be more restrictive than helpful.

These regulations are aligned with the priorities set forth in Education Code section 8263.


Potential conflict with ICE – do not need to document days/hours of activity Recommendation: CDE should eliminate the 30 hours per week maximum and impose the 52.5 hours per week maximum. If a participant requests more than 52.5 hours per week (for example, if the participant has more than one job, or is working and attending school), their county worker should discuss authorizing additional child care hours with the participant on a case-by-case basis.

These regulations are in alignment with how services are authorized for families receiving services pursuant to the Child Care and Development Services Act. Families must have a need for services to receive services. If families have a need for more than 30 hours of service, then they can submit additional documentation for another need criteria to increase the hours of service.

Proposed Section



InputThis language is not in any other documentation of need.

RecommendationA thorough review of the proposed regulation, provide language consistency.

RejectThis language is included because this need category was previously limited in regulation to a short time frame of eligibility (60 days). The CDE included this regulation to ensure that contractors implement 12-month eligibility for these families.



RejectThis language is included because this need category was previously limited in regulation to a short time frame of eligibility (60 days). The CDE included this regulation to ensure that contractors implement 12-month eligibility for these families.

18104 (Strike) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

There is nothing in regulations regarding Temporary Suspension of Services. Recommend to add language form Management Bulletin on TSS.

RejectThere is not a need for a temporary suspension of services with 12-month eligibility because federal rules of 12-month eligibility require that a family’s services are not changed due to temporary changes in circumstance.

Proposed Section




Include definitions of "stage 2" and "state median income". This clarification of Stage 2 is needed to conform to the statutory mandate that county welfare departments share the information necessary to ensure continuous child care eligibility. Welf. & Inst. Code § 11323.4(f). It also matches the directive contained in SB 80, and MB-18-05 that once the county or local Stage 1 contractor shares, the required data elements, the family is enrolled in Stage 2. See also M.P.P Sec. 47-301.4.

We recommend that the definitions still include “State Median Income.”


Proposed Section




We greatly appreciate clarifying that the section 8263 eligibility requirements apply to Stages 2 and 3.


18406(a) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

It is unclear to which regulations this refers, since there are no additional regulations included in this section. It is recommended that the requirements outlined in education code section 8263(a) are outlined here in Title V as well for clarity and ease of reference.

RejectThe CDE does not believe it is necessary to include all other requirements. This regulations package does not include all sections of chapters 19 and 19.5, but only includes the sections that changes were made.

Proposed Section




Add "CalWORKs Stage 2" to the section title. RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.

Proposed Section




Include a reference to WIC section 11323.2 - Changes in the Welfare and Institutions Code allow families currently receiving CalWORKs cash assistance to receive child care services for a broader range of program activities. See, WIC § 11323.2 (c). Upon transfer from Stage 1 to Stage 2, families will not lose their child care eligibility or level of service. We would appreciate a reference to the 12-month eligibility rule at 18410.



Need criteria – conflicts with CDSS (See Letter #8)’ immediate and continuous eligibility

Recommendation: CDE should make the following changes: Revise EDC Section 8263(a)(1)(B) to include that the parent is a CalWORKs cash aid recipient.

RejectThe CDE does not have the ability to revise Education Code section 8263(a)(1)(B) in these regulations.

Proposed Section




Add "A family transferred from Stage 1 to Stage 2 shall not be required to file a new application." to (b).


18408(c) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

When such a categorically eligible family would otherwise have their child care terminated due to the family's violation of a child care contractor provider's policy:

CommentIf the family violates a provider’s policy, the provider can elect to end services with the family and the family can request child care with a different provider. However, if the family violates a contractor’s policy, the contractor would otherwise terminate the categorically eligibility, so this is the situation where it would be necessary to contact the county welfare department

Accept The CDE accepted this suggestion to clarify that it would be the contractor's policy that is violated in order to terminate a family's eligibility for childcare services.

Proposed Section



Recommend that there be clarification that this be made a violation of the child care provider or contractor’s policy

AcceptThe CDE accepted this suggestion to clarify that it would be the contractor's policy that is violated in order to terminate a family's eligibility for childcare services.


(1) The contractor shall notify the county welfare department of the actions of the family that violated the contractor's provider's policy in order to determine what action(s) may be taken.

CommentThis seems to have potential to infringe on the provider’s autonomy as their own business. If the provider chooses to terminate a parent, the contractor can still continue providing services, just with a different provider of the parent’s choosing. If the contractor is required to notify the county welfare department to determine the next actions, this risks giving the decision-making ability to the welfare department instead of the provider, who should be able to elect when to stop providing services to a family. It seems to make more sense to keep this as “contractor” instead of “provider” so it pertains only to when the contractor determines that the family has violated a contractor’s policy. For clarity—contractor is understood to be the contract funds recipient, while provider is understood to be the direct service provider (may or may not be the contract recipient)

AcceptThe CDE accepted this suggestion to clarify that it would be the contractor's policy that is violated in order to terminate a family's eligibility for childcare services.

Proposed Section


18408(g) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Needs clarification. Recommend reverse rank order.

RejectThe disenrollment order is clear in statute.

18408(h)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add "(h) A family in which or or more members of the household are receiving CalWORKs cash assistance shall not be subject to family fees."

When the parent has timed off cash assistance or been sanctioned, some contractors mistakenly assess a family fee. Ed. Code § 8273.1(b)



Need criteria – conflicts with CDSS (See Letter #8)’ immediate and continuous eligibility Recommendation: CDE should make the following changes: Eliminate (5) The reason for needing child care services.


Proposed Section




Add, "The Stage 1 contractor or County Welfare Department is responsible for transferring the required information to the Stage 2 contractor in order to ensure a family’s smooth transition between CalWORKs stages."

Remove reference that the family is transferred from a county welfare department's Stage 1 program - It may be that the county welfare department has contracted out its Stage 1 program to a local child care agency. The statute, Ed. Code section 8350(c) says that whoever is administering the Stage 1 program is responsible for sending over the 9 data elements.



Should state children up to 21 if special needs or through high school if completing continuing education. This should be changed everywhere in these regulations for consistency.



Strike this language. Unnecessary and confusing. Cannot think of an instance when this information would be relevant.

AcceptThe CDE accepted this deletion for consistency.

Proposed Section




In addition to employment or training information, need eligibility may be based on taking educational classes, experiencing homelessness, or receiving CPS or considered at-risk. We urge the Department to align the documentation requirements to the extent possible with the other CDE general child care program requirements, and include these other “need categories” throughout these regulations. With all the child care programs, except for preschool, soon to be transferred to CDSS, it makes sense to broaden the category of “need” in al CDE administered programs to align with Stage 1.


Proposed Section




Add "(10) If the parent no longer receives CalWORKs cash-assistance, the date the parent last received CalWORKs cash assistance."


Proposed Section




We suggest inserting in this section “The family is not required to verify any information. However, if the family indicates that the information obtained by the receiving contractor pursuant to subdivision (a) is inaccurate or there has been a change, the new Stage 2 contractor shall update the family’s information.” MB 18-05.


Proposed Section


18409(c)18409.3(c)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add:(XX)An explanation of the 12-month eligibility requirements;(XX) Appeal Process and who to contact if parent does not agree with the service terms;(XX) How the Parent can correct any inaccurate information.


Proposed Section


18409(c)(3)(B)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add, "and family fee". RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.

Proposed Section




While the family should not be required to verify information, if the family indicates on their own accord that there is change or information is inaccurate, their family file should be updated.



Contractors may make other additions beneficial to the family. Recommend adding “unless beneficial to the family.”

RejectThe purpose of a seamless transfer is to ensure that families can move from one stage of CalWORKs to the next without any changes. Families would not even be notified of this transfer until they are already in the next stage, therefore no changes should be made at transfer. Families can always request changes to their services at any time in Stage 2.

Proposed Section




Add, "or family fee" after "...the family's certified schedule...".


Proposed Section


18409 Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

Suggested addition (a)(9): "Collecting a family fee"

InputIf a former recipients, family may be paying a family fee in Stage 1. That information must be captured when transferred to Stage 2. Further, DSS ACL No. 19-99 directs counties to provide Stage 1 families with immediate and continuous child care for 12 months. According to the ACL, families are deemed eligible at the point they are eligible for CalWORKs (with a few exceptions). This means that the NEED (and verification of NEED) for child care services has been severed.This new policy does not align with Stage 2 regulations specifically in the area of the seamless transfer process §18409 wherein the data elements include (5) The reason for needing child care services and (7) Employment or training information for parent(s) including name and address of employer(s) or training institutions(s) and days and hours of employment or training.Finally, as proposed, this language in this section does not allow a Stage 1 family to transfer into Stage 2 without one of the approved need statuses (CPS, At risk, employed, seeking employment, family experiencing homelessness, seeking permanent housing, vocational training, educational program, and medical incapacitation).If Counties are no longer required to determine child care eligibility based on an activity that is tied to a Welfare to Work plan how does a family seamlessly transfer into Stage 2?

Accept in-partThe CDE added, “if applicable” to subsection (a)(4) to ensure this information is only required if the family has a need for childcare services. The changes to this section will allow all families to be seamlessly transferred into stage 2 from stage 1 programs.

Reject in-partThe information needed to determine if a family was paying a family fee in Stage 1 is captured in subsection (a)(5). Employment or training information is necessary to share with the stage 2 contractor at time of transfer.

Proposed Section




These regulations are in alignment with how services are authorized for families receiving services pursuant to the Child Care and Development Services Act. Families are required to have a need for services.


RecommendationSince this is a transfer from one Stage 2 contractor to another Stage 2 contractor, the date that is needed is the date of the last recertification or the end date of the current certification period. Update language to reflect both. Need to add (11) The CalWORKs cash aid discontinuance date, if applicable since the contractors might be in two different counties.

AcceptThe CDE added, "The CalWORKs cash aid discontinuance date."


Recommend deleting language. Stage 2 contractors may not have this information because a family directly enrolled into Stage 2. If the language is to stay, then include “If available”. Another consideration may be to replace with CalWORKs Program discontinue date.

AcceptThe CDE added the language, "if applicable" and added, "The CalWORKs cash aid discontinuance date" for clarity.


See previous comments regarding including children over 18. And including this change in sections 18409.5.

RejectFor CalWORKs stage 2 and stage 3, family size means the number of adults and children related by blood, marriage, or adoption that comprise the household in which the child is living. This provision is in alignment with the intended definition.

Proposed Section



InputThe highlighted language implies that family size and adjusted monthly income is only needed if the other Stage 2 contractor was assessing and collecting a family fee. However, in Stage 2, isn’t income and family size always needed?

RecommendationDelete the highlighted language.

RejectTo ensure families are able to transfer seamlessly into Stage 2 services, this information is only required when a family fee is calculated in Stage 1. If a family is automatically eligible for the Stage 2 program because of the seamless transfer requirements from Stage 1, there is no need to collect that information from the Stage 1 contractor unless the family has already been assessed a family fee.

18409.3(d) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Add “unless beneficial to the family. Make this consistent throughout, include in section 18409.5.

RejectThe purpose of a seamless transfer is to ensure that families can move from one stage of CalWORKs to the next without any changes. Families would not even be notified of this transfer until they are already in the next stage, therefore no changes should be made at transfer. Families can always request changes to their services at any time in Stage 2.


InputAlthough this language exists currently, it creates confusion because the only requirements listed are the Data Elements. The current ECLD 9600 application for services has additional information that is required by contractors for reporting purposes.

RejectELCD forms are not required for contractors to use, therefore the data elements listed is the only information necessary to enroll a family.

Proposed Section



RecommendationUpdate the language to reflect that the application for services should be via the ECLD 9600 form. Also recommend adding “Documentation of CalWORKs Cash Aid Discontinuance Date” which is needed to determine if the family is actually eligible for Stage 2 early learning and care services.

Accept in-partThe CDE added, "The CalWORKs cash aid discontinuance date."

Reject in-partRequiring contractors to use the CD 9600 form for the application would limit contractor’s flexibility, the only requirement is that an application is completed with the required information; therefore, the CDE does not agree with that suggestion.

18409.5(a)(2) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)




See previous comments regarding including children over 18.


18409.5(a)(8) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

Delete (8) Rate of reimbursement. Not required when it is not a transfer.

AcceptThe CDE added language to clarify that the contractor must establish the rate of reimbursement once the family is certified for services because this section is specific to families that do not transfer from another CalWORKs agency.

Proposed Section




Add: "(11) If the parent no longer receives CalWORKs cash-assistance, the date the parent last received CalWORKs cash assistance."

Please insert somewhere in this section: “The family is not required to verify any information. However, if the family indicates that the information obtained by the receiving contractor pursuant to subdivision (a) is inaccurate or there has been a change, the new Stage 2 contractor shall update the family’s information.”


18409.5 Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Although this language was already here, it is confusing because the requirements listed are the data elements. It seems that the family should apply for services via the 9600 application process? It is hard to tell if the intent of this is for a family who is not currently aided but Stage 2 eligible.

RejectContractors are not required to use CDE forms, therefore the information required on the application for services must be specified in regulation. The requirements of CalWORKs are different then general child care programs and the information may seem redundant to what is required in other sections of regulations, however those sections do not apply to CalWORKs.

Proposed Section




Also, change (2) to all children “included in the family size”. Children over 18 who are in high school can still be counted in the family size with documentation and children with documented severe handicaps and/or exceptional needs can be included much longer


Once a person included in the family size turns 18 years old, they are an adult regardless of the circumstances of that person (i.e. in high school, or exceptional needs). If the family chooses to keep this adult in the family size, the adult's income must be calculated for eligibility, and they must also have a need for services, if applicable.

18410 Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

RecommendationAdd language to clarify that parents can still voluntarily request changes to increase or decrease the level of service and/or decrease their family fee.

RejectSection 18410.3 specifies that families have the right to voluntarily request changes and states the process in which to do so.


Recommend clarifying that parents can still voluntarily request changes to increase or decrease the level of service and/or decrease their family fee.

RejectSection 18410.3 specifies that families have the right to voluntarily request changes and states the process in which to do so.

Proposed Section




Add "unless the parent voluntarily requests a change in service hours or a reduction in family fees." after "...no other changes shall be made by the contractor."



Same concern and request for reconsideration applies as was included for CAPP timelines above


Proposed Section



Recommend reviewing input provided in §18082.1 and reflect 90 days. Recommend consistency in terms of business/calendar days.

Recommend using business days. Especially during the current pandemic, such prescriptive timelines do not allow for reasonable variances contractors need to make depending on changing local conditions and safety orders.

RejectTo ensure equity and consistent implementation across the state, the CDE believes that 50 days is a reasonable length of time to recertify families given the contractor can reach out to the parent 30 days prior to the end of the eligibility period. The CDE has applied calendar or business days consistent with what is reasonable for the requirement in the regulation.



Cite both 18481 and 18419 - This NOA should cross reference all the due process regulations that apply and are contained in the regs governing general child care programs.


Proposed Section


18410.1(c)–(e) CDSS (See Letter #8)

No conflict

RecommendationIn regard to section (e), further discussion is needed with CDE to come to a consensus on the reasons for disenrolling a participant (including the possibility of disenrolling due to abandonment of care, parent request, or the non-payment of family fees).





Add, "and the amount of the family’s income limit,".



Too prescriptive. Allow for contractors flexibility and internal policies.

RejectThe language "Except as otherwise provided for in law or regulation" ensures that any other law or regulation that allows for disenrollment still applies.

Proposed Section



Include if residence changes to outside contractor’s service area.


18410.1(e)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Remove, "Except as otherwise provided in law or regulation,".


Proposed Section


18410.1(e)(1)18425.1(e)(1)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Use "limit" rather than "threshold" RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.


(g) The contractor shall make every effort to make the recertification process convenient for families by providing early morning, evening, weekend appointments, or appointments at alternative locations as needed. The contractor may use technology to complete the recertification process if there is no other reasonable way for the family to complete the process in person. (Suggested deletion)

RejectThe CDE does not believe that the language, "if there is no reasonable way for the family to complete the process in person," causes any undue burden on the family. If it is not reasonable for the family to recertify in person then the contractor may use other means to recertify the family.

Proposed Section




RecommendationSuggest changing wording to - Families shall have their eligibility determined for continued child care and development services no sooner than the 12 month eligibility period.


18410.1(b)(1) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

There is no necessity being satisfied, as there are no longer signed applications for services. Current Practice: If transferred into Stage 2 from a Stage 1 program, there isn’t a signed application the first 12 months from the transfer but there is the following years. A family is eligible for Stage 2 for two years after being discontinued from cash aid. They could be recertified in Stage 2 multiple times.

Suggest to clarify regulation language with the following: (b)(1) Notify the parent in writing in the final 30 days of the 12-month certification period or effective date of Stage 2 transfer, which starts with the day the agency’s authorized representative signed the last application for services, of:

AcceptThe CDE added language to include the effective date of transfer.

Proposed Section





RejectThe specificity of "30 days" ensures consistent implementation across the state. The CDE believes that allowing contractors to develop policies about recertification creates inconsistent access to services for families across the state.


For consistency and clarity add “(4) Abandonment of care and (5) Parent request and (6) Delinquent fees”. Eliminate in (3) “substantiated evidence of” as agencies do not have staff that can make a legal finding of substantiated.






The language "even if disqualifying information is discovered during the preliminary collection of documentation for recertification" is a federal requirement and therefore cannot be deleted.

Proposed Section



InputThis language references only a residency change outside of California. Please note the inconsistency of use of the word “residence” here vs. “residency” previously.


RejectThe recommendation to address transfers to another contractor's service area is beyond the scope of the proposed amendments to the regulations. Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 98.21(a)(5) limits the exception for disenrollment to a residency change outside the state. A residency change within the state does not affect a family’s 12-month eligibility therefore the CDE will not be addressing those concerns in these regulations, technical assistance will be provided to contractors.








RejectThe CDE does not believe that the language, "if there is no reasonable way for the family to complete the process in person" causes any undue burden on the family. If it is not reasonable for the family to recertify in person then the contractor may use other means to recertify the family.

Proposed Section


18410.218425.2* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Change "Threshold" in title to "Income limit". RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.

18410.2(a) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

Delete “ (1) Provide the parent with a copy of the most recent Schedule of Income Ceiling eligibility table, as published by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction;” as parents want to know the maximum income not the multiple pages of the actual Schedule. Further, (1) is a waste of resources and unnecessary if they receive (a)(2)(A).Delete (2)(A) in its entirety as it has no reference and lacks necessity and clarification.

RejectProviding families with the Schedule of Income Ceiling eligibility table provides maximum transparency to families. Subsection (a)(2)(A) is necessary to ensure that families are not held responsible for reporting information that has not been clearly explained to them and to ensure there is transparency for families across the state.

Proposed Section


18410.2(a)(2)18425.2(a)(2)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add, "in their preferred language". RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.

18410.2(b) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

For line (b)(1):Delete, to determine if the family is remains income eligible for continued services with “services shall continue.”

In line (b)(2) remove 15 calendar days and insert “as requested by contractor”.

RejectThis provision in subsection (b)(1) protects both parents and contractors from miscommunication and provides transparency to families.

The CDE believes 15 calendar days is a sufficient amount of time for families to provide documentation requested by the contractor. To ensure consistent application throughout the state calendar days are used rather than business days which can be subjective to the business.

Proposed Section


18410.2(b)(2)18425.2(b)(2)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add, "The Notice of Action shall give clear instructions on the process and rules for appealing a decision."




RecommendationRemove “Provide the parent with a copy” and amend with “Inform the parent...”.

RejectProviding families with the Schedule of Income Ceiling eligibility table provides maximum transparency to families and ensures consistent implementation statewide.


Proposed Section




RejectProviding families with the Schedule of Income Ceiling eligibility table provides maximum transparency to families.

18410.2(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1)–(3)


InputThis language in the above varies a little bit from §18082.2 and §18425.2.

RecommendationA review of all sections pertaining to the requirement to report when income exceeds statutory threshold for income eligibility and provide consistent language.

AcceptThe CDE added language to ensure that all sections requiring families to report when income exceeds statutory authority is consistent.






Recommend eliminating “the contractor shall inform the family in writing” and replace with “And shall remain eligible until the end of the eligibility period.”


Proposed Section



Recommend 20 business days. RejectThe CDE believes 15 calendar days is a sufficient amount of time for families to provide documentation requested by the contractor in a timely manner. To ensure consistent application throughout the state calendar days are used rather than business days which can be subjective to the business.

18410.3(e) and (f)


There is language in this section that lacks clarity and creates a more burdensome and lesser standard than what currently exists in California statutes.As previously noted, the written requirement for a parent to voluntarily reduce their certified schedule is archaic, punitive and fiscally irresponsible. This is a hardship for families and implies that the contractor is somehow taking away benefits. Families do NOT like this Regulation. They do NOT understand why they can’t simply reduce their schedule without having to jump through several hoops that may (especially in rural communities) be very difficult to navigate.


18410.3(a) and (e)


Recommendation: In (e)(1) and (e)(2), CDE should add that a parent shall submit a “verbal, written or electronic request” and acknowledge in writing, verbally, or electronically”


Proposed Section



It is requested that this be reconsidered. It ends up being burdensome to families to submit this request in writing and to ensure that each component is included. This often requires back and forth communication (especially for the parent to include (2) below). If this could be communicated over the phone and documented in case notes, this would be helpful to the families.







Recommend consistency and strike out reference to “submit a written request” and mirror appeals language §18120. Family should not have to submit a written request voluntary changes.


Proposed Section




RecommendationRemove “in writing” and recommend language that states contractors shall advise parents that they may retain their current service level. Parents understand that any change made at their request becomes their new service level and will replace any other certificates/service level.






18410.3(f)(1) Sandra Herrera-Gonzalez - Children’s Home Society of California (See Letter #3)

Same comment as in the CAPP section applies here and to C3AP below.


Proposed Section




RecommendationRemove “in writing” and recommend that contractors shall advise parents of their right to continue to bring their child pursuant to the original certified schedule.


18410.3 Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

See previous comments to this language RejectRequiring written documentation protects both parents and contractors from miscommunication.



Require contractors to allow parents and/or their representatives to make copies of their files.

We have worked with APs who only allow the client or us to review the file at their office and prohibit the client from making copies of their own file. Sometimes, it takes the client or us hours to review a file and take notes on the file while there. Clients should be able to make and keep copies of paperwork that pertain to their case file.


Proposed Section


18415(b) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

This language is not current as applications are no longer needed for a Stage 1 to Stage 2 transfer. However, a family may apply for child care services directly into Stage 2 without transferring from Stage 1 or another Stage 2 agency, an application would be needed under those circumstances.

RejectWhen a family is transferred from CalWORKs Stage 1, the transfer must be seamless therefore the family would not be requesting CalWORKs Stage 2 child care services and an application would not be necessary.


Strike “or the provider” There are no circumstances in which the provider furnishes eligibility or need documentation.

RejectThe commenter is correct that providers do not furnish any eligibility or need documentation because this is current regulation, and must stay in regulation to ensure it does not happen.



Add, "CalWORKs Stage 3" in the title of the section.


Proposed Section




Add, " to the extent possible, the family shall be provided with continuity of services pursuant to Cal. Educ. Code Section 8263 (c)" and "A family being discontinued or transferred to another program shall be provided with a Notice of Action pursuant to section 18119."


18424(a) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)



Proposed Section




Should change to all children “included in the family size”. Children over 18 who are in high school can still be counted in the family size with documentation and children with documented severe handicaps and/or exceptional needs can be included much longer.


For CalWORKs stage 2 and stage 3, family size means the number of adults and children related by blood, marriage, or adoption that comprise the household in which the child is living. This provision is in alignment with the intended definition.


Recommendation: Remove “if applicable” and add “or the end date of the current certification period”.

RejectThe date of the last recertification will provide the contractor with the necessary information to determine the end date of the current certification period, therefore it is not necessary to include both.


See previous comments on (a)(2) regarding children over 18 with special needs or continuous education.


18424(a)(8) Denyne Micheletti Colburn - CAPPA (See Letter #5)

Delete. Not required for a transfer.Current practice: item 8 is required for a transfer, it’s not required when it’s not a transfer. Stage 3 eligibility is based on transfers from Stage 2.

RejectThis section is specific to transfers from another CalWORKs agency; therefore, there would be a rate of reimbursement to report.

Proposed Section



InputThis language does not make sense under section 18424 because the enrollment into Stage 3 is by transfer from another CalWORKs agency.

RecommendationAlthough this language previously existed, mirror previously proposed language and remove “effective the first of the month after the family has timed out of Stage 1 or Stage 2”.

RejectIt is unclear what previously proposed language is being referred to in this recommendation and what benefit would result from deleting this language.


The language here should also clarify that the effective date of coverage for services cannot be back dated.

RejectWhen the family has timed out of services in Stage 1 or Stage 2, the CDE cannot hold the agency responsible to make payments. Agency should have known when family was going to time out and should have been working to transfer the family on time.



We suggest inserting in this section “The family is not required to verify any information. However, the family indicates that the information obtained by the receiving contractor pursuant to subdivision (a) is inaccurate or there has been a change, the new Stage 2 contractor shall update the family’s information.”


Proposed Section


18424(h)(1) and (3)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


We urge the Department to refer to families as people throughout the regulations –i.e., insert “who” rather than “that.”


Proposed Section


18424(i)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Replace "timed out" with "been disenrolled". RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.

Proposed Section


18424(j)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add, "To the extent possible, the family shall be provided with continuity of services pursuant to Cal. Educ. Code Section 8263 (c)."


18425 Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

RecommendationAdd language to clarify that parents can still voluntarily request changes to increase or decrease the level of service and/or decrease their family fee.

RejectThis is recommendation is already clarified in section 18424 and the process for families voluntarily requesting changes is in section 18425.3.

Proposed Section




Add, " unless the family voluntarily requests a change in schedule or reduction in family fees."



General comment: should match/be consistent with 18410

RejectThe language is consistent.

Proposed Section




RecommendationSuggest changing wording to - Families shall have their eligibility determined for continued child care and development services no sooner than the 12 month eligibility period.

RejectTo ensure equity and consistent implementation across the State, the CDE believes that 50 days is a reasonable length of time to recertify families given the contractor can reach out to the parent 30 days prior to the end of the eligibility period.


Consistent with previous recommendation of 90 days, especially in light of current pandemic flexibility is needed.





RejectThe specificity of "30 days" ensures consistent implementation across the state. The CDE believes that allowing contractors to develop policies about recertification creates inconsistent access to services for families across the state.

Proposed Section




Replace "as income eligible" with "based on their income".


18425.1(d)(2) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputThis language references only a residency change outside of the “State”. Previous proposed language has “California”.


RejectTitle 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 98.21(a)(5) limits the exception for disenrollment to a residency change outside the state. A residency change within the state does not affect a family’s 12-month eligibility therefore the CDE will not be addressing those concerns in these regulations, technical assistance will be provided to contractors.

Proposed Section


18425.1(d)(3) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)





For consistency and clarity add “(4) Abandonment of care and (5) Parent request and (6) Delinquent fees”.

Reject in-partThe language "Except as otherwise provided for in law" ensures that any other law or regulation that allows for disenrollment still applies. This includes regulations that allow for contractors to determine additional policies that could justify disenrollment.Accept in-partHowever, because an abandonment of care policy was included the CDE added this as a reason for disenrollment in this section.




RejectThis language is in alignment with the federal regulations and ensures families are only disenrolled in alignment with state and federal law.

Proposed Section


18425.1(f)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add, "The Notice of Action shall give clear instructions on the process and rules for appealing a decision."





RejectThe CDE does not believe that the language, "if there is no reasonable way for the family to complete the process in person," causes any undue burden on the family. If it is not reasonable for the family to recertify in person then the contractor may use other means to recertify the family.

18425.1(g) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

See previous comments. This is cumbersome for agencies and can create safety risks for staff.

RejectThis requirement is in alignment with federal regulation to ensure that contractors make every effort to ensure that the recertification process is convenient for families and does not disrupt their education, training, or employment.

Proposed Section


18425.1 CDSS (See Letter #8)

RecommendationFurther discussion is needed with CDE to come to a consensus on the reasons for disenrolling a participant (including the possibility of disenrolling due to abandonment of care, parent request, or the non-payment of family fees).

Reject in-partThe language, "Except as otherwise provided for in law," ensures that any other law or regulation that allows for disenrollment still applies.



Requested reconsideration of this timeline as explained above



(g) The contractor shall make every effort to make the recertification process convenient for families by providing early morning, evening, weekend appointments, or appointments at alternative locations as needed. The contractor may use technology to complete the recertification process if there is no other reasonable way for the family to complete the process in person. (Suggested deletion)

RejectThe CDE does not believe that the language, "if there is no reasonable way for the family to complete the process in person," places an undue burden on the family. If it is not reasonable for the family to recertify in person then the contractor may use other means to recertify the family.

18425.2(a) and (b)


Delete (a)(1) in its entirety "(a) (1) Provide the parent with a copy of the most recent Schedule of Income Ceiling eligibility table, as published by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction;". Parents want to know the maximum income not the multiple pages of the actual Schedule. Waste of resources and unnecessary if they receive (a)(2)(A).


Proposed Section




RecommendationRemove “Provide the parent with a copy” and amend with “Inform the parent...”.






18425.2(a)(2)(A) Elaine Arteaga - Child Action, Inc. (See Letter # 7)

InputThis language is not consistent with §18082.2(2)(A) and §18410.2(2). All sections regarding reporting income over 85% SMI need to be consistent.

RecommendationA review of all sections regarding reporting income over 85% SMI and provide consistent language.

AcceptThe CDE added language to ensure that all sections requiring families to report when income exceeds statutory authority is consistent.

Proposed Section




Replace "threshold" with "limit". RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.






Recommend deleting “the contractor shall inform the family in writing” and inserting “the services shall remain in effect.”


Proposed Section



See previous recommendation for 20 business days.

RejectThe CDE believes 15 calendar days is a sufficient amount of time for families to provide documentation requested by the contractor in a timely manner. To ensure consistent application throughout the state calendar days are used rather than business days which can be subjective to the business

18425.2 CDSS (See Letter #8)

CDSS (See Letter #8) concurs with the importance of providing parents with information so they can fully understand their responsibility for reporting income when it exceeds the threshold for continued eligibility.


18425.3(d)(3)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add, "as of the date of the request" after "...increase the certified schedule immediate...".


Proposed Section








RecommendationRemove “in writing” and recommend language that states contractors shall advise parents that they may retain their current service level. Parents understand that any change made at their request becomes their new service level and will replace any other certificates/service level.


Proposed Section


18425.3(e)(2)* This comment relates to the15-day comment period for a 12-month eligibility regulation package that was noticed for a 15-day public comment period on 10/14/19, and subsequently withdrawn, and not to the current regulation package.


Add, "during their eligibility period". RejectPursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), this comment is deemed irrelevant because it is not specifically directed to the CDE's proposed actions noticed on June 12, 2020.





Proposed Section




RecommendationRemove “in writing” and recommend that contractors shall advise parents of their right to continue to bring their child pursuant to the original service level.


18425.3(a) and (e)


RecommendationCDE should make the following changes: a parent shall provide a “verbal, written, or electronic request and acknowledge verbally, in writing, or electronically.”



Add "unless it benefits the family." RejectIt is unclear what benefit would result from adding this language. The subsection is clear that this information can only be used to reduce the family fee, which is the only outcome that would be to the benefit of the family, therefore the addition is not needed.


The written requirement for a parent to voluntarily reduce their certified schedule is archaic, punitive and fiscally irresponsible. This is a hardship for families and implies that the contractor is somehow taking away benefits. Families do NOT like this Regulation. They do NOT understand why they can’t simply reduce their schedule without having to jump through several hoops that may (especially in rural communities) be very difficult to navigate.


Proposed Section



Recommend deleting or making it consistent with appeals language. See input within Section 18082.3 (e)


18425.3(f) Julie Swanstrom - 4Cs of Sonoma County (See Letter #9)

Recommend deleting or making it consistent with Appeals language.


18427 CDSS (See Letter #8)

RecommendationCDE should make the following changes: Please see CDSS (See Letter #8)’ comments on Section 18424: Should change to all children “included in the family size”. Children over 18 who are in high school can still be counted in the family size with documentation and children with documented severe handicaps and/or exceptional needs can be included much longer


18430(a)–(d) CDSS (See Letter #8)

RecommendationThe contractor would not know what provider documentation was previously provided to a county welfare department or another alternative payment program.

For clarity it is recommended to include language that does not preclude the contractor from requiring the provider to complete the registration process with the receiving contractor

RejectThe responsibility to transfer a family successfully from CalWORKs Stage 1 or Stage 2 to Stage 3 is between the two contractors, not the provider.

Proposed Section



For clarity the language assumes that the provider the parent is using is registered with the receiving contractor. Each contractor has enrollment forms and provider orientations including obtaining acknowledgement from the provider that they agree to the contractor’s policies, especially payment policies. In addition if the provider is exempt, the contractor would need to obtain the TrustLine documentation, if applicable. Also, the contractor would not know what provider documentation was previously provided to a county welfare department or another alternative payment program. For clarity it is recommended to include language that does not preclude the contractor from requiring the provider to complete the registration process with the receiving contractor.

RejectThis regulation only precludes the provider from furnishing need and eligibility documentation. If the contractor needs documentation or information from the provider regarding the provider's payments or TrustLine clearance they may request it from the provider.


Recommend deleting this language. The provider is never required to furnish this documentation.

RejectCorrect, providers do not furnish any eligibility or need documentation because this is current regulation, and must stay in regulation to ensure it does not happen.

Proposed Section


NA Sherry Velte - Campus Child Care (See Letter #2)

While we agree with the benefits to the families, children, and programs, the 12-month eligibility regulations has unintended negative consequences for campus child care programs, where the income eligible family must be an enrolled at the university in order to be able to enroll for child care services. Currently enrolled families who are not on the state funds must vacate their child care placements once they graduate or no longer attend school to allow placements for more student families who desperately need the child care to attend college. In our case, we continually have a very large waitlist and this ruling has prevented us from enrolling families from the waitlists.

No Action Required12-month eligibility is a statutory requirement and cannot be changed for a specific population through regulatory changes.


Since the ASI Children’s Center at Sacramento State University has implemented the12 month eligibility, families who no longer attend the University take subsidized child care spaces that should be allocated to income eligible college students with children. Thus, taking these coveted placements, creating a barrier for others who need the placement to continue their education. We brought this issue and concern to our analyst who stated this was overlooked when the regulation was created.

No Action RequiredTwelve-month eligibility is a statutory requirement and cannot be changed for a specific population through regulatory changes.


Another unintended consequence is families who earned their degrees don’t want to increase their income to the point of losing subsidized-prioritized child care placements. Every semester, we have families who flatly tell us they will do what it takes to keep their children enrolled, and they feel bad knowing they are blocking another Sac State student parent but they don’t believe they will find childcare they are comfortable with.


Proposed Section



The 12 month eligibility ruling makes complete sense for most programs, however it has negative impacts on colleges and Universities. I am in a CSU Campus Child Care Directors group who were not prepared for the impact this ruling would have on their programs and continues to impact future income earners. I believe there can be a Hybrid model that allows exceptions for Campus Child care centers.


NA Nurhan Pirim - LA County DPSS (See Letter #4)

The draft CDE regulations continue to state that families must have a need such as employment, seeking employment, vocational training, etc., to be eligible for CalWORKs Section 2 Child Care and CalWORKs Section 3 Child Care, which contradicts with revised eligibility rules that were recently legislated under SB 80 for CalWORKs Section 1 Child Care.

For this reason, Los Angeles County DPSS strongly recommends that CDE's revised regulations eliminate the "need" requirement, to effectuate a truly seamless transfer process between S1CC and S2CC/S3CC for families who are not participating in a Welfare to Work activity or employment, but would like to continue receiving child care through S2CC and/or S3CC.

RejectThese need categories in alignment with Education Code section 8263 and are applicable to early learning and care programs operated pursuant to the Child Care and Development Services Act, therefore they cannot be eliminated from this regulation.

NA Jolie D. Buberl - Child Development Associates (See Letter #10)

Please consider removing overtime as a type of intermittent income. The requirement to collect 12 months of income when a family has overtime will be very burdensome. If this is left in, recommendation is to allow for a shorter period of income to collect, such as the 3 previous months.

RejectThe CDE has determined that this is an acceptable policy to ensure that inconsistent income from sporadic overtime does not affect the family's eligibility.

Proposed Section



Please consider removing the requirement of a parent to put in writing a request to change their certified schedule. This is burdensome and may prevent families from being able to make quick changes to their schedules.



Please consider removing the requirement of face to face recertifications, especially in the era of COVID. Families are able to apply for other services without requiring a face to face appointment and with the variety of technology options available, agencies can easily meet a family’s need without requiring them to come to an in person appointment. This is especially burdensome for families who rely on public transportation or have limited resources for gas money, etc.

RejectThe CDE does not believe that the language, "if there is no reasonable way for the family to complete the process in person" causes any undue burden on the family. If it is not reasonable for the family to recertify in person then the contractor may use other means to recertify the family.


Please reconsider avenues for fraud prevention and not limiting actions to be taken if the potential fraud only invalidates a certification or recertification. Families and providers may legitimately enroll but then commit fraud and based on the new language agencies would not be able to take action.


NA Eric J. Sonnenfeld - Tulare County Office of Education (Letter NA)

Sent Wrong Attachment RejectIt seems that the commenter emailed the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking rather than the proposed regulations; therefore, no comments were found.

03-15-21 California Department of Education

the 12-month eligibility 45-comment chart - proposed ... · web viewcalifornia education for a...

Documents