![]() |
2008 Index for WAC |
Advocates will answer your questions regarding WAC and/or request formal clarifications on your issues of concern. The advocates can assist you in your direct request for clarification, make the request on your behalf or make the request keeping your personal information confidential. We will post the response to these requests once received. |
The Negotiated Rule Making Committee is now addressing WAC 170-296s. Here is an abbreviated list of our concerns. This list primarily addresses due process rights and regulations used to modify, deny, revoke and suspend childcare Providers' licenses. You will need a copy of your WACs to follow these recommendations. We will add a link to the WACs with this posting once it is on the APRE web site. Again if any of these recommendations are issues for you then email the new Administration with your concerns. You have our full permission to copy, forward and distribute this information any way you feel is appropriate. This list has not been completed but will be. The Department Of Early Learning new Administration email addresses:
We are recommending that the title of these regulations be changed back to Minimum Licensing Requirements. Licensors should be removed from the business practices of the licensed childcare Providers. Under WAC 170-296-0020 regarding definitions Under 170-296-0120 Overpayments We are of the position subsidy issues should be addressed by DSHS's Working Connections and not DEL licensing regulations therefore this WAC in its entirety should be removed from licensing regulations. Section (2) should be eliminated all together no matter what agency is monitoring subsidy payments. Under WAC 170-96-0140 Personal characteristics. (2) (b) "understanding" needs to be clarified. (c) "physical ability to respond immediately" needs to be clarified. (d) "Reliability and dependability" need parameters (or eliminated all together as a regulation) (e) " Truthfulness" needs to be defined with parameters (or eliminated all together as a regulation) (f) "disposition" needs to be clarified or eliminated as a regulation. (e)"Ethical business practices" should not be regulated or determined by licensers but by the BBB and clients themselves. Under WAC 170-296-0150 (1) "IF WE DETERMINE" needs to be clarified with parameters. (a) (b) (c) (d) require providers and members of the provider's household to submit to the following evaluations: substance and alcohol abuse evaluations and submit documentation of treatment, psychiatric and psychological evaluations, psycho-sexual and medical evaluations without probable cause. (4) Allows the department to deny an application for licensure or revoke the license if the Provider refuses. This WAC needs to be closely evaluated and a choice for Providers to close voluntarily if this WAC remains. WAC 170-296-0160 does not address how often a licensee must attend orientation. Is orientation offered to first time provides or at every relicensing? (b)(ii) a photo copy of SS card is only necessary if receiving subsidy payments and should not be a licensing requirement. It should be part of becoming authorized for Working Connections. 2(f) needs clarification and parameters of these requests. WAC 170-296-0170 (2) (a) "within 7 calendar days of employee's or volunteer's first day of work" needs to be clarified. WAC 170-296-0190 (1) "Disqualifying Convictions and Negative Actions List" needs to be addressed for the ramifications of permanent disqualifiers other than criminal history. (language change occurred with input from public.) WAC 170-296-0195 (3) needs to eliminated in its entirety from licensing regulations WAC 170-296-0205 (3) (a) and (b) Licensors are not trained to assess character, competence or physical and metal health of the Provider or Providers family members. A criminal history background should serve as a disqualifier and/or factual evidence of competence other the opinion of a licensor should be required to assess character, competence, physical and metal health. WAC 170-296-0215 should be rewritten and clarified. If a family member has been disqualified from having unsupervised access to children the Provider's license should not be automatically denied, suspended or revoked. Provisions for the disqualified family member to not be present during childcare operational hours and notification to parents of the concern the department might have should be an option available to the licensee. More to follow.... |
A request made this month for a Policy Clarification regarding WAC 170-296-1340, which reads as follows: What incidents involving children must I report? (1) You or your staff must report any of the following incidents immediately to your local children's Providers are being told by licensors that if a child with a known medical condition i.e., seizures has a seizure while in childcare requiring medical attention that the seizure "incident" must be reported to Intake. The report would then generate a complaint and an interview of parents. Which would then result in privacy issue of the family as well as create a complaint against the Provider which would then be listed on the new LCCIS. Providers and parents are aware that if an injury occurs in childcare requiring medical attention resulting from the seizure then that injury would need to be reported to Intake. (The current WAC requires this/APRE does not agree with the current WAC as written). This email is to acquire a clarification on: if the seizure presents, after a full disclosure of the medical condition, would the Provider be required under WAC 1340 to report it to INTAKE? Clearly you recognize how problematic this would be for the child's parent, the Provider and the public's perception of complaints. Deborah Rosser DCCEL's Response: The WAC does say that a seizure must be reported to intake. Seizures can be caused by any number of things, including some types of abuse, which is the reason it is a reportable issue. Request #2 for clarification: APRE has been inundated by Provider calls regarding information being told Providers attending licensing orientations being conducted in the Tri-Cities area. This email is to serve as a request for clarification on several issues. It has also been reported to APRE that DCCEL is stating to Providers that once the Supervisory Review for Facility Compliance Agreements is in place that Providers will not be "allowed" to have representation. We are confident that Providers are mistaken in this conception as all Washington State citizens are afforded the right to hire an agent, (via power of attorney or legal representation of choice), to represent them when they are otherwise unavailable or unfamiliar with the process which has a direct impact on their ability for continued employment. Deborah Rosser, APRE |