AB 1528 revises and consolidates statutory definitions and operational rules for California’s childcare and development programs. The bill spells out what counts as attendance for reimbursement (including a defined set of excused absences and the ability to claim a held slot during certain appeal or abandonment situations), defines cost categories that may be reimbursed (with limits tied to fair market rents), clarifies who may operate alternative payment programs and other contracting agencies, and sets an explicit formula for an “assigned reimbursement rate.”
The changes matter for day‑to‑day operations: providers and contractors get clearer rules about when they can bill for absent children and what costs qualify for state funds, county and departmental administrators receive temporary authority to implement part‑ and full‑time certification through guidance documents, and the department must initiate formal rulemaking by mid‑2026. Those operational shifts will alter documentation, audit exposure, and revenue predictability for providers and local agencies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill tightens statutory definitions across childcare programs, prescribes specific reasons that count as excused absences for reimbursement, authorizes contractors to claim attendance when holding spaces during abandonment or appeal processes, and defines how assigned reimbursement rates are calculated and what program costs qualify. It also gives the department interim authority to use all‑county letters for implementing part‑time and full‑time certification until regulations are in place.
Who It Affects
Licensed centers, family childcare homes, alternative payment programs (including migrant AP programs), county offices of education and other contracting agencies, family childcare home education networks, and families receiving state‑subsidized childcare. Program auditors and local fiscal officers will also face new documentation and compliance responsibilities.
Why It Matters
By turning longstanding administrative practices into statutory rules, the bill changes the baseline for reimbursement claims, contract budgeting, and audit protocols. Providers gain clearer entitlements in some areas (e.g., hold‑space reimbursement) but also face stricter definitional boundaries that will shape eligibility, cash flow, and compliance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1528 is primarily a definitions and operations bill: it lines up the statutory vocabulary that governs California’s childcare and development system so administrators, contractors, and providers share a single understanding of terms such as alternative payments, applicant or contracting agency, caregiver, and provider types. That matters because many program rules and funding flows hinge on those definitions; codifying them reduces ambiguity when agencies contract, invoice, or audit.
On attendance and reimbursement, the bill names specific situations that count as excused absences—illness, quarantine, parent illness/quarantine, family emergency, medical or educational appointments, and court‑ordered time with relatives—and it lets contractors claim reimbursement for days when a provider must hold a space while a family is presumed to have abandoned care or while the family is pursuing an appeal related to disenrollment for abandonment. Practically, this creates a clear path for providers to request payment during certain gaps in actual child presence, but it also puts documentation and verification burdens on contractors and auditors.AB 1528 also lays out what “costs” may be included in program budgets—employee benefits, administration, certain facility costs, startup and capital outlay expenses—and places a cap on facility costs tied to fair market rents in the community.
The bill defines an assigned reimbursement rate as the contract dollar amount divided by a contractually specified minimum child‑day average daily enrollment level, and it preserves a separate standard reimbursement rate set by the department. Those mechanics affect how local agencies build contract budgets and how providers forecast revenue when enrollment fluctuates.The measure singles out special program elements—family childcare home education networks, migrant alternative payment programs, services for children with exceptional needs, short‑term respite childcare, and resource and referral services—and clarifies eligible services such as health screening, referrals, and parent training.
Finally, the bill fixes the part‑time/full‑time certification threshold (fewer than 25 hours per week vs. 25 or more) effective March 1, 2024, allows the department to implement that change through all‑county letters until formal regulations are adopted, and requires initiation of rulemaking by July 1, 2026. It also makes a narrow exception: a memorandum of understanding that conflicts with these provisions controls unless it obligates additional state funds, in which case the Budget Act must authorize the spending.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill explicitly counts specified reasons—illness, quarantine, parent illness/quarantine, family emergency, medical or educational appointments, and court‑ordered visitation with a relative—as excused absences that still qualify for attendance reimbursement.
A contractor may claim attendance reimbursement for days a provider is required to hold a child’s space while a family is presumed to have abandoned care or is pursuing an appeal related to disenrollment for abandoning care.
Assigned reimbursement rate is calculated by dividing the contract’s total dollar amount by the contract’s minimum child‑day average daily enrollment level, tying per‑unit payments directly to guaranteed enrollment metrics.
The statute caps facility‑related reimbursable costs (lease payments, depreciation, loan payments) at fair market rents for the community in which a facility sits.
Part‑time care is defined as under 25 certified hours per week and full‑time as 25 or more; the department may use all‑county letters to implement these definitions until it issues formal regulations and must initiate rulemaking by July 1, 2026.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Alternative payments and alternative payment programs
These subdivisions define both the payment mechanism (payments made between agencies, to providers, or to parents buying care) and the organizational form of alternative payment programs. Practically, this clarifies that local government agencies and nonprofit contractors (including specified migrant programs) may operate AP programs under department contracts and that payments routed through multiple entities fall within the statute’s scope—so contracting terms, flow‑of‑funds language, and oversight responsibilities must reflect that chain.
Who may contract to provide services
The bill lists eligible contracting entities—school and community college districts, counties, cities, public agencies, private (taxable and tax‑exempt) agencies, colleges, and other authorized entities—and requires that private agencies and parent cooperatives receive equivalent consideration without loss of parental decision‑making prerogatives. This provision affects competitive procurement, grant eligibility, and how agencies structure contracts to preserve parental choice.
Rate mechanics: assigned and standard reimbursement
Assigned reimbursement rates are tied to contract dollar amounts spread over a minimum child‑day enrollment metric; the department separately sets a standard reimbursement rate. Contract managers must translate service levels and guaranteed minimum enrollment into per‑child payments, which will drive budgeting, invoicing templates, and financial reporting for both contractors and providers.
Attendance, excused absences, and hold‑space reimbursement
Attendance is defined broadly to include specified excused absences and explicitly lets contractors claim days when a space must be held during an assumed abandonment or appeal process. The practical implication is twofold: providers have a statutory basis to seek reimbursement during these periods, but auditors and contractors will need clear records substantiating excused absences and the circumstances requiring space holding.
Costs, capital outlay, and startup expenses
The statute enumerates allowable costs—including employee benefits and administrative expenses—and permits capital outlay and certain facility costs, but limits those facility costs to fair market rents in the community. It also defines startup expenses and when the state may purchase relocatable facilities. These rules will shape contract budgets, capital financing choices, and local decisions about leasing versus buying space.
Services for special populations and implementation timing
The bill reiterates eligibility and service expectations for children at risk, children with exceptional needs, and homeless children, and lists health and support services that must be available. It also fixes the part‑time/full‑time certification thresholds with a March 1, 2024 effective date, allows interim implementation by all‑county letters, and requires the department to begin formal rulemaking by July 1, 2026—while preserving precedence for conflicting MOUs except where new expenditures would be required by the state budget.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Licensed childcare providers: Gain a clear statutory basis to claim reimbursement for a broader set of excused absences and for holding spaces during appeals or assumed abandonment, improving short‑term revenue predictability when attendance fluctuates.
- Alternative payment programs and family childcare home education networks: Receive clearer statutory recognition and contracting clarity, which simplifies program design, contract negotiation, and the flow of alternative payments to parents and providers.
- Children with exceptional needs and homeless youth: Benefit from explicit statutory inclusion and enumerated support services (health screening, referrals, respite), which strengthens the legal basis for targeted services and funding eligibility.
- Contracting agencies and program administrators: Get specific rate‑setting and cost‑inclusion rules—such as the assigned reimbursement formula and fair market rent limits—that reduce uncertainty when drafting and managing contracts.
Who Bears the Cost
- County offices of education and other local contracting agencies: Must implement new documentation, adjudication, and invoicing practices for excused absences and held spaces, increasing administrative workload and recordkeeping requirements.
- Providers in high‑rent communities: Face a practical cap on recoverable facility costs because reimbursable facility expenses cannot exceed community fair market rents, potentially squeezing margins or discouraging facility investment in expensive areas.
- The department (state administrators): Must draft, distribute, and later formalize regulations (including all‑county letters and a rulemaking process), absorbing staff time and technical resources to operationalize the statute.
- Contracting providers and alternative payment programs: Take on new audit exposure and documentation obligations for claims tied to excused absences and appeals, which may require upgraded billing, attendance tracking, and legal support.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing provider financial stability and predictable access to care against the state’s need to control public spending and prevent misuse: the bill secures payment rights for providers in certain attendance gaps and standardizes cost recovery, but those same features increase fiscal risk and administrative complexity unless matched by tight documentation, oversight, and adequate funding to support enforcement.
The bill resolves many ambiguities by statute, but that clarity creates implementation questions. First, allowing reimbursement for held spaces during presumed abandonment or appeal protects provider revenue but invites potential overpayment or gaming unless the department issues tight documentation standards and audit protocols.
Second, capping reimbursable facility costs at community fair market rents addresses fiscal prudence but may produce inequities in high‑cost urban areas where market rents outstrip the cap, potentially pushing providers to seek nonreimbursable revenue or curtail facility investments.
Timing poses another complication. The part‑time/full‑time definitions are effective retroactively relative to the rulemaking schedule: the department may implement them via all‑county letters until formal regulations arrive, and it must open rulemaking by July 1, 2026.
That split between immediate guidance and later regulations can create legal uncertainty for contracts executed in the interim, especially where memoranda of understanding conflict with the statute and the Budget Act controls funding for exceptions. Operationally, counties and providers will need clear transitional templates, and the department will need to prioritize promulgating regulations to avoid disputes over retroactive application and financial responsibility.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.