Bill Description: House Bill 243 deregulates certain aspects of child care licensure to expand the range and types of providers able to provide services.
Rating: +3
Analyst Note: House Bill 243 was amended to reinstate minimum child to staff ratios, but expands them slightly to include more children per staff member. Though this approach is not preferred compared to their complete removal, as proposed in the original version of this legislation, it still offers some additional flexibility for child care providers through deregulation. Therefore, this amendment did not change the rating of the bill.
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
House Bill 243 repeals many onerous regulations on child care facilities at both the state and local level. A key part of this legislation repeals the statutory authority local units of government currently have to impose regulations on day care facilities that are more strict than those set by state statute or administrative rule. Repealing their authority to go beyond what the state has established creates a uniform standard across Idaho.
Regulators argue that restrictions in statute, rule, or local ordinances are necessary to keep consumers of child care services safe, but this is not really the case. Threats to child safety that may exist in child care facilities do not vary from community to community. What is safe for families in Meridian should also be safe for those in Boise.
Many local ordinances are onerous or redundant. For example, Boise has ordinances that instruct day care facilities to have age-appropriate seatbelts and car seats for transporting children, but this is already Idaho law. Boise also requires day care workers — not just facilities — to have a license to work, though this is not a requirement in Idaho law. It is notable that Boise’s neighboring city, Meridian, does not have such regulations, which cause shortages and rising costs in the child care industry.
In addition, House Bill 243 also removes administrative rules promulgated by the Department of Health and Welfare. The bill cuts requirements as it moves rules into statute. This not only deregulates the industry at the state level, but it also sets durable standards that cannot be changed by administrative fiat.
Together, these changes relieve artificial shortages caused by onerous regulations.
(+1)
Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Examples include occupational licensure, the minimum wage, and restrictions on home businesses. Conversely, does it remove barriers to entry into the market?
In addition to offering some deregulation, this bill expands the market of day care providers. The current vision of day care in Idaho centers around congregate care facilities. But this is not necessarily the most cost effective model, and regulation reinforces it by preventing the market from offering more tailored options for families.
House Bill 243 adds a definition of what constitutes “supervision” to mean “a provider is within sight or normal hearing range of the child and near enough to render immediate assistance” for children less than five years old. This definition specifies that for children older than five, “a provider is within sight or normal hearing range of the child as appropriate to the child’s individual age, needs, and capabilities.” Under current Idaho statute, supervision for all ages is defined as being within sight and normal hearing range, making certain functions of child care impractical for many types of facilities.
In a related change, the bill loosens the Idaho child staffing ratio. Idaho code prescribes the minimum staffing levels a facility is allowed to have per child. Studies indicate these ratios do not lend to safety, but do drive up the costs of child care. These cuts codify current regulatory policy after the Department of Health and Welfare granted waivers which permit this relaxed child to staff ratio relative to what is currently established in Idaho code.
These provisions work to expand the availability of and options for child care by lowering barriers that often prevent different provider types from entering the market.
(+1)
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?
A smaller aspect of this legislation removes penalties for when day care facilities don’t post their state license in a conspicuous place, or have a physical copy always present at the facility. Failure to do so is a misdemeanor under current Idaho law — a prime example of a victimless crime, as it is already illegal to operate a day care facility without it being licensed. Should a facility be unable to produce a copy of their license upon the request of a parent, the facility risks losing business. Therefore, this is best enforced as a check by the market, not by criminal code. House Bill 243 is right to repeal this provision.
(+1)
