AB 904 rewrites and expands the statutory definitions used throughout California’s Childcare and Development Services to create a single reference point for eligibility, reimbursement, and program operations. The bill inserts detailed definitions — from alternative payment programs to specialized populations — and adds a new statutory definition of “workday” tied to parents’ job-related activities and certain leave situations.
These definitional changes matter because agencies, providers, and alternative payment programs will use them to determine certification hours, attendance accounting, and contract-based reimbursement. The text also builds in a short-term administrative path for implementation while directing the Department to adopt permanent regulations, which shifts both operational practice and short-run administrative burden to local agencies and the Department.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a comprehensive definitions section (10213.5) that agencies must use for program terms such as alternative payments, attendance, assigned reimbursement rate, and support services, and adds “workday” as a statutory eligibility concept tied to job‑related activities and certain leaves. It also authorizes administrative implementation tools before formal regulations are adopted.
Who It Affects
Local contracting agencies, alternative payment programs, licensed childcare and family childcare home networks, state and county administrators, and parents whose need for care is tied to work, training, job search, pregnancy‑related leave, or paid family leave.
Why It Matters
Those definitions will determine how hours are certified, which absences count for reimbursement, and how contract dollars map to per‑child payment rates — all of which shape provider revenue, parental access to care, and how state dollars are allocated at the local level.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 904 compiles and clarifies the building blocks that govern subsidized childcare in California by inserting a single, detailed definitions section into the Childcare and Development Services statute. The new definitions reach across program design — naming alternative payment programs and the mechanics of alternative payments, defining what counts as attendance, detailing what costs are allowable, and describing program types from migrant care to family childcare home education networks.
That single reference reduces ambiguity for claims, contracts, and audits.
Two operational items stand out. First, the bill defines “workday” as the time a parent needs temporary care for job‑related reasons — specifically listing training, job search/work, pregnancy‑related leave, paid family leave, and other activities necessary to household economic functioning; that statutory anchor will be used when certifying a parent’s need for care.
Second, the bill sets a concrete hours-based distinction between part‑time and full‑time certification: fewer than 25 hours per week is part‑time; 25 or more hours is full‑time. Those thresholds change how many certified hours a family may receive and how programs categorize enrollment.On reimbursement and payment mechanics, AB 904 formalizes several administrative measures that providers and contracting agencies must use.
It defines an “assigned reimbursement rate” derived from a contract’s total dollars divided by the contract’s minimum child day of average daily enrollment — a formula that directly links contract value to per‑child funding levels. The statute also says that attendance for reimbursement purposes explicitly includes a set of excused absences (illness, quarantine, parental illness/quarantine, family emergency, or court‑required time with a relative), which will affect monthly attendance claims and cash flow for providers.The bill clarifies allowable costs (including some facility costs subject to fair market rent limits), enumerates health services and support services that programs should provide, and specifies program personnel definitions like site supervisor and teacher permits (with a narrow waiver option for documented compelling need).
It also permits the department to use an “alternative methodology” — a cost‑based rate‑setting approach — and provides short‑term administrative authority to implement part/full‑time definitions through all‑county letters or bulletins while it completes regulation writing.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines “workday” to include time needed for training, searching for or retaining a job, pregnancy‑related leave, paid family leave, and other activities essential to family economic functioning.
It sets part‑time certification as fewer than 25 hours per week and full‑time certification as 25 or more hours per week.
The department may implement the part‑time/full‑time definitions via all‑county letters or bulletins until regulations are adopted and must initiate formal rulemaking by July 1, 2026.
For reimbursement, attendance includes specified excused absences — illness, quarantine, parental illness/quarantine, family emergency, and court‑required time spent with a relative — which providers may count toward billed days.
The assigned reimbursement rate is calculated by dividing the contract’s total dollar amount by the contract’s minimum child day of average daily enrollment, directly tying contract size to per‑child payment levels.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Alternative payments and alternative payment programs defined
These provisions define the forms alternative payments may take — payments between agencies or to parents for purchasing care — and identify the entities eligible to operate alternative payment programs (local government agencies, nonprofits, and migrant programs). Practically, this clarifies who can run voucher‑style arrangements and receive department contracts, and it frames the administrative relationship between contracting agencies and parents/providers.
Assigned reimbursement rate and attendance rules
The bill codifies how contract dollars translate into per‑child reimbursement by defining the assigned reimbursement rate (total contract dollars ÷ minimum child day of average daily enrollment). It also expands the legal definition of attendance for reimbursement to include a list of excused absences (illness, quarantine, parental illness/quarantine, family emergency, and court‑mandated time with relatives), removing some prior ambiguity about what missed days may still be billed.
Definitions for special populations and cost terms
The statute repeats and updates eligibility guardrails for children with exceptional needs and severely disabled children by cross‑referencing existing early intervention and special education statutes and requiring active service plans. It also defines closedown and startup costs, and sets limits on allowable facility costs — permitting lease, depreciation, and loan costs but capping them at fair market rents in the community, which matters for capital budgeting and contract negotiations.
Health, support services, and workforce roles
AB 904 lists expected health services (referral, screening, immunization support when community resources fail, education, and follow‑up) and enumerates support services (parent training, transportation, counseling, resource and referral). It defines teacher, program director, site supervisor and allows narrow waivers of site supervisor permit requirements when compelling need is documented, creating a limited operational flexibility for staffing in underserved areas.
Part‑time/full‑time thresholds and administrative implementation
This subdivision sets the operational thresholds for part‑time (<25 hours/week) and full‑time (≥25 hours/week) certification, gives the department authority to implement those rules through all‑county letters and bulletins prior to regulation, requires the department to begin a rulemaking process by July 1, 2026, and clarifies that a memorandum of understanding controls if in conflict unless it requires new appropriations. That sequence creates a fast track for operational change combined with a formal rulemaking later.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing 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
- Parents engaged in job search, training, or on pregnancy‑related or paid family leave — the statutory “workday” gives a clear, defensible basis to certify need for care tied to these activities, potentially expanding access to subsidized hours.
- Children with exceptional needs and severely disabled children — the bill reiterates cross‑references to existing early intervention and special education eligibility, reinforcing that those children receive specialized consideration and must have active service plans.
- Alternative payment programs and family childcare home education networks — the statute explicitly recognizes these program models and their payment roles, reducing ambiguity about contracting authority and program responsibilities.
- Providers receiving reimbursement for excused absences — by listing acceptable excused absence reasons, the law reduces uncertainty about billable attendance days and may stabilize provider revenue when children miss care for these reasons.
- Contracting agencies and program administrators — a single, detailed definitions section gives them a consistent legal reference for contracts, audits, and eligibility determinations, simplifying legal interpretation across program types.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Department of Social Services and county offices — they must implement the new definitions administratively, issue all‑county guidance, stand up monitoring and reporting changes, and complete rulemaking by the statutory deadline, which requires staff time and systems work.
- Local contracting agencies and alternative payment programs — they will need to update intake, eligibility certification, billing systems, and contract templates to align with the new definitions and the assigned reimbursement rate calculation.
- Childcare providers, particularly small and family daycare operators — changes to reimbursement calculation, attendance accounting, and cost documentation may increase administrative burden and require new recordkeeping, at least in the short run.
- Budget owners and grant writers at contracting agencies — because facility costs are allowed but capped at fair market rent, agencies in high‑cost regions may face shortfalls or need to reallocate funds to meet required startup or capital outlay expenses.
- Employers and community organizations who coordinate training or job programs — they may receive more requests to document or verify parent participation during defined “workday” activities, adding administrative transactions outside direct childcare systems.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB 904 aims to broaden and standardize access (by defining workday and excused‑absence attendance) while containing costs and ensuring administrability (via assigned reimbursement formulas and cost caps); the central tension is between expanding eligibility and protections for families versus the fiscal and administrative strain that expansion imposes on providers, local agencies, and the Department.
The bill offers clarity but creates implementation trade‑offs. Making “workday” a statutory concept expands the legitimate reasons a parent may receive subsidized care, but it also requires reliable verification processes.
The text does not prescribe a documentation standard for proving a parent’s participation in training or job search, nor how to verify “other activities that are essential” to family functioning. Counties and alternative payment programs will need to create operational rules, which risks inconsistent application across jurisdictions until the Department issues statewide regulations.
The reimbursement mechanics create further tension. The assigned reimbursement rate ties contract dollars to a minimum child day of average daily enrollment; in practice this can penalize providers during enrollment swings and create incentives for conservative minimums in contracts.
Allowing attendance to include specified excused absences protects families and stabilizes provider revenue, but broad inclusion of absences increases program cost pressure. Finally, permitting facility costs up to fair market rents leaves ambiguity in high‑cost areas where fair market rents may not cover real market pressures, potentially forcing agencies to choose between underfunding facilities or reallocating funds from other program services.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.