When I connect with childcare owners and providers, we often start by talking about licensing issues, but inevitably everyone wants to talk about UTK and what’s going on with the “single license.” Most folks know about AB2131, which was supposed to eliminate the “toddler component” and eliminate the rule that toddlers cannot commingle with other age-groups. In practice, however, the licensing agency has kept all of the onerous restrictions in place (toddlers still cannot commingle with other age-groups), and the only change the agency has adopted is to give facilities one facility number instead of two or even three.
Many providers want to try to make change but don’t know where to start. I am no lobbyist, but I believe a good first step is simply to try to alert the lawmakers who passed AB2131 that the licensing agency is resisting both the spirit and letter of the law. Such a message is more likely to be heard if it comes from many childcare providers instead of just one. To add your voice or your center’s voice to this petition, just complete and submit the below.
The following petition was sent to state assembly members and state senators of the Human Services committees in January 2025:
We, the signers of this petition, own, operate, or manage childcare centers in California. We believe that childcare must be regulated to ensure the health and safety of all children in care.
Our state is in a childcare crisis and it is no exaggeration to say that the industry is at risk of collapse. The state’s rollout of Universal Transitional Kindergarten (UTK) only in public schools is already causing the state to lose many of its childcare spots for infants, toddlers, and young preschoolers, because UTK has caused enrollment of four-year-olds in childcare centers to plummet. With tight margins even when a center is full, this has pushed many centers into the red and at risk of closure.
In 2022, the Legislature passed AB2131, which was meant to provide childcare centers with much-needed flexibility in how they operate, specifically in response to the rollout of UTK. AB2131 attempted reform by requiring the Department of Social Services to adopt regulations to create a “single license” regime and eliminate the “toddler option,” which would allow centers to more quickly adapt their programs to serve more younger children.
In practice, however, DSS’s interim regulations implementing AB2131 keep in place all of the substantive and convoluted restrictions of the prior regulatory regime (permanent separation of each “age component,” an infant teacher not being allowed to supervise a preschool child even for a moment while they’re nearby on the playground, etc.). The only change DSS is implementing is to give centers one “facility number” in DSS’s system, instead of two or three.
For many of our centers to survive, we need the Legislature to compel DSS to implement a true “single license” regime. We propose eliminating “age components” from the regulations entirely, while keeping in place the substantive regulations for each age-group (e.g., student-teacher ratios, safe sleep rules for infants, rules regarding food and baby formula, requirements for toilets and sinks, etc.).
This would allow any center licensed as a “childcare center” to re-organize quickly in response to changes, whether day-to-day (e.g., allowing the remaining few children across age-groups to commingle for the last minutes of the day to reduce staffing costs); seasonal (e.g., convert classrooms used for preschoolers during the school-year into school-age summer camp rooms in summer); or sea-change like the implementation of UTK.
There is already precedent for such a shift in California law. Childcare programs that are contracted with the California Department of Education are governed by provisions in Title 5, not Title 22, and are already allowed to commingle children from different “age components.” The rule under Title 5 in those circumstances is simply that the youngest age-group must still be subject to their student-teacher ratio, and if the youngest group comprises more than 50% of the group, that ratio must apply to the whole group. Simply allowing the same in childcare centers regulated by Title 22 would provide much-needed operational flexibility.
Further, obtaining a fire clearance from the local fire marshal is already a requirement of the licensing process. Thus, to the extent fire or building codes limit the use of particular rooms to particular ages (e.g., a room on the second floor may be suitable for preschool or school-age children but not for infants), the fire marshal already makes such a designation. Where a particular room meets all the requirements to serve as an infant, preschool, or school-age classroom, the business ought to have the flexibility to convert the room’s use without having to go through a full re-licensing process that takes months and costs thousands.
Childcare is a vital part of California’s economic infrastructure, supporting the labor force and helping children develop the social and emotional skills needed to succeed in elementary school and beyond. We merely ask our elected representatives to eliminate the arbitrary constraints that are pushing many childcare centers to the verge of collapse.
This petition has already been finalized and submitted, so the opportunity to sign has passed. However, if you’d like to help with future efforts, please contact me directly: