When there is a change in a regulation the Office of Regulatory Management completes an Economic Review Form and the form published with these proposed standards is intentionally misleading. The Economic Review Form published states that the new standards will likely result in additional net revenue of $35,902.40 for each licensed child day center. This is based on the ill advised and already allowed ratio increases. 

While the economic review forms are always subjective because each program is different and the impact of regulations is difficult to estimate. In this case the largest numbers in the document are false. The Economic Review Form states that programs could have a direct benefit of $37,600 as a result of increased staff-to-children ratios. This is inappropriate to include. We wrote yesterday about how the increased ratios are ill advised and though we advocate against them even if they pass they would never account for increased revenue for each child care center.

There are three problems with the inclusion of revenue from increased staff-to-child ratios: it is already allowed by the current regulations, the standard specifically says it is temporary, and it is largely inaccessible to programs. 

• This increase in staff-to-child ratios was allowed during the pandemic if programs opted in to the increased ratios and communicated with families. 200 of 2,600 programs in the state programs opted into this - this is less than 10% of programs. Those programs may have realized that increased revenue as a result. Therefore it is inappropriate to include the revenue in this economic review form.

• Children in our care are not widgets on an assembly line, 90% of programs did not opt into this increase because it is impractical. Many programs, like ours, operate below the state mandated ratios to better serve the children in their care. Most programs construct classrooms based on square footage required to serve a specific number of children which was based on the original teacher child ratios. 

• Even if more programs were to use the allowable variance to increase their teacher child ratio the standard says “temporarily alter their staff-to-child ratios” which means that programs could not use this standard to find, enroll, and maintain a higher level of enrollment and increased income.

We should have a true economic review that does not include this pre-existing and inaccessible ratio increase as a basis for justifying the increased cost of the rest of the updated standards. While this regulation does move towards reducing some burdens for providers, it actually will cost providers more to provide care under these new regulations. This regulatory change is actually costing $1,698 at least based if this ratio related revenue which was already realized by the 10% of programs opting in and never realistic for 90% of providers is removed.

Ninety percent of programs didn't take advantage of this option to increase ratios when it was implemented because it is ill advised. Increasing ratios is not in the best interest of children. Doing so and then claiming that it will save providers money is misleading. 

An updated Economic Review Form is needed.