As promised from the previous update: a meeting with the OCFS was held from 2PM-3PM on 4/1/25. This is the follow up e-mail sent Friday 4/4/25 with meeting notes:

Hello,

Thank you all for your time and attention this week.  To recap, the purpose of our meeting on April 1, 2025 was to summarize the same concerns regarding compliance reporting, a need for written rights/due process, and the disparities between NYC and NYS that we have formally voiced on multiple occasions for several years, demonstrate that the requested changes are within the jurisdiction of the Office of Children and Family Services, and discuss the status of change. The OCFS has stalled long enough hiding behind the complexity of the bureaucratic processes and taking advantage of the general lack of understanding of the system.  

After years of research, we have identified that the OCFS can make the requested changes by mobilizing a variety of actions within their jurisdiction including but not limited to:

• Submit an amendment to the CCDF plan to the ACF for approval
• File a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Secretary of State, allow public comment  for 60 days after being published in the New York State Register, assess the comments received, propose revisions, and publish in the New York State Register in accordance with Section 202-d of the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA).
• Implement Administrative Directives (ADM), Local Commissioner Memorandums (LCM), and Informational Letters (INF)
• Submit a notice of Emergency Adoption in accordance with the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA).

Attached is the PowerPoint Presentation from this week’s meeting for your reference. Below are the outstanding changes we have requested and responses (if applicable) from the meeting:

Standardization of ratios, group sizes, infant/toddler definitions throughout NYS
o    Nora referenced legislative bill A612/S278 and said that if/when the bill passes, the OCFS would open the topic for public comment.

o    We would like to note that the justification for the bill says it “aims to introduce uniform standards of conduct across the state in childcare settings,” and references the “disparities between New York City's and New York State's regulations” for ratios, maximum group sizes and the varying definitions for age groups.  The clear legislative intention is for the DOH and the OCFS to standardize these items statewide and is explained as such in the 3/25/25 chamber video at 1:08:47 

Vetting complaint calls for credibility
o    Jim said there is no way for the OCFS to definitively establish credibility of complainants but mentioned there is a process for screening incoming complaints.

o    We compromised that if unsubstantiated complaints were removed from compliance reports following investigations, that would satisfy this request.

Removing unsubstantiated complaints from compliance reports
o    Nora said she is waiting on someone from the ACF to clarify requirements since the written clarification we received from Megan Campbell contradicts written communication previously received by the OCFS.  Nora also mentioned needing to discuss the topic with the OCFS legal team but was actively willing to make this change as long as it is approved by both the legal team and compliant with the ACF. 

o    Since we provided evidence that other states (link for California on slide 9) are currently operating this way and are compliant with the Child Care Block Development Act and have provided written clarification from Megan Campbell from the ACF (slide 10), this request should easily be acquiesced. 

Self-report investigation trigger and “complaint” classifications of self-reports
o    OCFS representatives did not discuss the status of this request during the meeting.

Classifying the level of violation severity / statistics summary 
o    OCFS representatives did not address the status of this request during the meeting.

Display comments from providers regarding inspection reports (plain language summary)
o    Nora said she is not in favor of this change and will not be pursuing it because of the undue burden it would create for licensors in the form of excess documentation.

o    As mentioned on slide 13, the state of Delaware issues a draft of investigation findings and violation wording to the childcare center and administrators may appeal the wording before it goes onto the site for public viewing. This should be a potential compromise.  Providers in Massachusetts may respond directly on the agency’s website to violations, which requires no additional documentation from the licensor and is another potential compromise.

Add quality indicators to consumer education website
o    Nora said that this action continues to be in process with the New York State Impact Project: Quality Child Care.  She said NYAEYC and Quality Stars research/efforts need to be represented as they do not want duplicative or contradicting definitions of “Quality Childcare” from the OCFS.  Nora mentioned this would be discussed at the NYAEYC Conference further.

We need written Bill of Rights/protections/due process
o    OCFS representatives did not discuss the status of this request during the meeting.

o    Another NYS provider received an e-mail from Nora on March 29th 2024 regarding a Provider Bill of Rights stating “We [OCFS] have been working on something similar to this and will be circling back to you shortly with an update.”

Please respond with a tangible timeline for these changes to be made and OCFS position statement on each of the above topics.  We look forward to your response and action on these matters.

NYS Childcare Owners