EEC unveils proposed residential-care regulation updates, opens public-comment period through Jan. 12

The Department of Early Education and Care on a virtual session presented proposed revisions to its residential-care regulations aimed at modernizing terminology, centering children’s needs and strengthening trauma‑informed practices and workforce supports. Staff said the last comprehensive review of the rules was in 1995 and described a multiagency effort to reduce duplication and clarify expectations for programs that serve children with complex needs.

Joseph Sick Rock, identified in the session as part of field operations, said the review was intended to be "aspirational" at the commissioner's direction and to align standards across agencies. He described residential license programs and temporary shelters that together serve children with trauma, health and developmental needs and cited short‑term programs with a combined capacity of about 5,300.

Kelly Bukley, a supervisor in residential placement units, outlined three focal areas for revision: modernizing documentation and definitions (including non‑discriminatory and inclusive language), expanding supports and training for staff, and improving accountability, transparency and technology for consistent application across sites. Staff said a draft comprehensive document is planned for the coming fall and that the agency aims to have a comprehensive document and implementation timeline in 2026.

Staff announced a formal public‑comment period that closes Jan. 12. The session host explained that comments made during the meeting will be recorded and posted on the EEC website and the agency’s YouTube channel, and said each live commenter would have three minutes to speak with a visual cue at 30 seconds remaining.

During the public‑comment portion, one participant, identified as Chantel, asked whether recent staff immunization sessions and potential vaccine refusals by employees would affect agency policy for new or existing staff. The host declined to answer substantive policy questions during the formal comment period and invited the commenter to follow up privately, noting the meeting was a public‑comment forum rather than a Q&A.

Emily Walker, who introduced herself as a residential director, urged broader outreach to groups that will be affected by the regulations and specifically asked that the review include youth voices so young people have the opportunity to offer public comment. "Creo que hay valor en compartir esto con todas las partes involucradas por aquellos que están bajo el cuidado de nuestro estado," Walker said, arguing that the process should not lose sight of impacted individuals. Staff responded that they are evaluating youth participation and working with programs at different levels to capture those perspectives.

Staff reiterated next steps: they will collect and review comments through Jan. 12, revise the draft as warranted, and return a proposal to the board in April, with additional sessions, trainings and policy development to follow. The meeting closed with thanks to participants and interpreters.

The agency did not adopt or vote on regulations at the session; commenters were invited to submit written feedback through the public‑comment portal before the deadline.