| Action | Adopt New Standards for the General Procedures and Information for Licensure |
| Stage | Final |
| Comment Period | Ends 12/31/2025 |
 |
6 comments
"A license issued under this chapter shall expire two years from the effective date of the permit. The superintendent may extend or shorten the duration of licensure periods for a child day program or family day system whenever, in the superintendent's sole discretion, it is administratively necessary to redistribute the workload to improve staff utilization. "
This part is totally ambiguous and misleading. Why are you changing a straightforward process with the right to appeal to something authoritarian and discretionary? Why does the superintendent have the right to shorten a period of two years of a license at his sole discretion? Before, the rules were more straightforward, but now, you are taking away the appeal process. This is a total government intrusion into the daycare business, which is not easy to keep going.
What does that mean, "it is administratively necessary to distribute the workload to improve staff utilization"? Please tell me if you're referring to you or to our business. If it is about us. How are you going to determine that? We follow the regulations and laws regarding radio staff/children. What are you talking about? I do not know who wrote this new proposal; if these people were part of my business, I would fire them! This proposal is scary, and their goal is to eliminate Day Care Centers and companies they do not like! Are you doing this intentionally or because you are all very inexperienced in relation to this type of business? New regulations are supposed to help grow businesses, not destroy them!
Honestly, I do not like participating in this type of process with comments because, in the end, they do whatever they want without taking people's input into account.
I would like to request an additional comment period for the pending regulation changes.
For years, childcare providers have been giving the state feedback that the way Virginia licenses childcares makes it extremely difficult to sell. Private Equity firms and large chains have legal and regulatory teams to make this easy for them, but navigating the process is almost impossible for a small center. I speak from experience. As Baby Boomers retire, they will have a hard time selling their small centers to other teachers, parents, etc. They will have to close without selling or sell off to a big corporate entity.
A licensed center with a good regulatory history should be able to transfer leadership to a new qualified owner. As staff, the new owner would be subject to all of the background checks and training requirements. If the new owners make any changes to procedures, staff, etc., that will already be reviewed within 6 months due to the regular inspection cycle (or immediately, if there are complaints reported).
We also need a regulatory pathway to easily approve a temporary relocation of operations in the event of major facility problems. Hurricanes hit NJ and North Carolina and caused huge numbers of childcare centers to go bankrupt because they couldn't get approval to open in a temporary facility while undergoing repairs. Tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and wildfires hit Virginia too.
Another issue: why does a center with a good compliance history have to reapply for a new license every 2 years? It makes no sense. We are already inspected by VDOE every 6 months and any time there is a complaint. Fire and Health inspectors come annually. Licenses should be granted permanently and only revoked for compliance issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on 8VAC20-821, the new consolidated regulation replacing 8VAC20-820 (General Procedures), 8VAC20-770 (Background Checks), and 8VAC20-830 (Licensing Fees). While consolidation may promote efficiency, multiple provisions within the chapter introduce practical, legal, and operational concerns for child day programs and licensed Family Day Systems across the Commonwealth.
I operate a licensed Family Day System that supports home-based child care programs across multiple Virginia localities. Based on real-world experience with licensure, monitoring, and compliance, I respectfully request clarification and reconsideration of several provisions before this regulation becomes effective.
The regulation establishes a two-year license term but also authorizes the superintendent to shorten or extend a program’s license period “at the superintendent’s sole discretion” for internal workload distribution.
The phrase “sole discretion” is overly broad and lacks objective standards.
License term affects renewal cycles, inspection schedules, financing, enrollment stability, and long-term planning.
Providers need predictability; discretionary alteration of license length creates uncertainty and potential inequity.
Define objective criteria for when license terms may be shortened or extended.
Require written justification to the licensee when altering duration.
Clarify that adjustments to license duration may not be used in a punitive manner or result in inconsistent treatment.
The regulation states that all administrative or final order sanctions become “terms of the license.” Failure to comply then becomes a “prohibited act.”
It is unclear how long a sanction remains a term of the license after full compliance.
Without explicit rules, resolved sanctions may continue to affect a provider’s status indefinitely.
This could unfairly elevate minor or historic issues into long-term licensing liabilities.
Define when and how a provider returns to “good standing.”
Clarify whether resolved sanctions expire or can continue to influence future licensing actions.
Ensure sanctions do not permanently follow a program once corrective action is complete.
The Department’s summary notes that variances may now be issued to groups of programs. This could benefit Family Day Systems and home-based programs facing similar barriers.
“Groups of programs” is undefined.
No process exists for requesting a group variance.
No requirement for publicly posting approved group variances.
Lack of transparency may lead to inconsistent application.
Define “group variance” and criteria for eligibility.
Establish a formal request and review process.
Require public posting of approved group variances to promote consistency and equal access.
The regulation aligns background checks with statute and introduces additional procedural requirements, including:
CPS Central Registry requests within 7 days for individuals turning 14 or moving into the home.
Authority for programs or VDOE to require a new background check if there is “reason to suspect” a disqualifying background.
Seven days is often unworkable due to processing delays outside the provider’s control.
“Reason to suspect” is undefined and could lead to subjective or inconsistent demands.
These requirements may disproportionately affect home-based providers with complex family living arrangements.
Provide guidance on compliance when CPS results are delayed through no fault of the provider.
Define “reason to suspect,” or provide examples and protective limits to prevent arbitrary application.
Permit extensions or provisional acceptance of documentation when delays arise from state processing times.
Applications not completed within six months are closed, and applicants must file a new application and fee.
Six months is insufficient for applicants experiencing zoning, construction, or financing delays.
Applicants may be penalized for delays caused by government agencies or local planning authorities.
Allow extensions for good cause, including municipal delays.
Permit fees to be credited toward a renewed application when the delay is not attributable to the applicant.
All conditional licenses, provisional licenses, special orders, notice of intent to revoke/deny renewal, and summary suspensions must be posted at every public entrance.
Required posting at all public entrances can stigmatize providers even after violations are corrected.
Home-based programs may be disproportionately impacted due to neighborhood visibility and community relationships.
Reputational damage can occur long after compliance has been restored.
Limit posting to a reasonable timeframe after compliance is achieved.
Provide standardized, explanatory language to notify families that corrective actions are underway and pose no immediate safety threat.
Providers have:
5 business days to request review of inspection findings.
15 calendar days to appeal denials, revocations, or refusals to renew.
Five business days is too short for small programs to gather documentation or seek counsel.
A single-level review process conducted by supervisory staff designated by the superintendent limits due-process protections.
Extend review periods to at least 15 days for inspection findings.
Provide a second level of review to ensure fairness and quality control.
The regulation allows a provider to request a consent agreement instead of an adverse action, but requires:
Stipulating that all cited violations are valid.
Waiving all APA hearing rights.
Accepting the superintendent’s unilateral determination of compliance.
Consent agreements may pressure providers into waiving rights prematurely.
The regulation does not guarantee restoration to “good standing” after successful completion.
Providers may not fully understand the legal impact of waiving hearing rights.
Guarantee that providers who fully satisfy a consent agreement return to good standing.
Provide clear written advisories outlining the legal consequences of entering a consent agreement.
Allow reasonable time for providers to seek legal consultation before signing.
While consolidation of regulations may streamline administrative processes, several provisions of 8VAC20-821 require further clarification or refinement to ensure fairness, transparency, and operational practicality for child day programs and licensed Family Day Systems.
I respectfully request the Department to issue clarifying guidance, consider limited amendments before the effective date, and ensure that providers have the support necessary to comply with these substantial regulatory changes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Today, the majority of politicians are Democrats in the General Assembly. They continue to ruin America’s economy by making selfish, wasteful, and illogical policies that have put the citizens at risk and paying the price.