Default Style Register
Daycare.com Forum
Daycare Center and Family Home Forum>Pennsylvania New Proposed Rules/Monitoring & Cameras
kateem02 05:51 AM 10-13-2018
Pennsylvania published new proposed rules for child care facilities yesterday, October 12, 2018 for public comment prior to hearing and adoption later this year/early next year.

Full link here:
https://www.pabulletin.com/secure/da...8-41/1587.html

I wanted to discuss the following proposed rule regarding monitoring devices when the provider cannot be physically present with the children. (e.g. the provider needs to use the restroom or prepare food for the children)

 (f) While on the family child care home premises, an operator shall use a monitoring device with a video camera or other video or sight technological device to supervise a child if the operator is not able to directly see, hear, direct and assess the activity of the child due to activities such as the need to be in the restroom or for the preparation of meals and snacks. The alternative method of supervision shall only be for the time it takes to complete the specific activity.

[This is the exact proposed language that would be applied to family care homes, which is the type of daycare I operate]

Have other providers experienced this in their state? What has been the impact? Cost? Logistics? In my space, Iím imagining that I would have to have at least three monitoring cameras for the viewing device based on my physical layout. My read of the term technological device would mean that a baby monitor of some sort would suffice. In no way do I want the children to be recorded. I would want real time images only.

Experience? Thoughts?
Reply
hwichlaz 09:36 AM 10-13-2018
I have cameras that do record. But parents do NOT have access. It's for cover my hiney only They connect to an app on my ipad so I can monitor them. I set it up on a kick stand so that I can watch them all napping in the playroom while I fold laundry in my room or use the restroom.

They cost about $90 each, and I put a 128G SD card in each camera. They have a pretty wide angled lense so I only need 2 to cover where the kids hang out.

I don't think this should be mandated though. It's NOT mandated where we are, in California. I do this to cover my butt in case of an accusation. But this is my home...and those things can be hacked.
Reply
Annalee 11:46 AM 10-13-2018
Originally Posted by kateem02:
Pennsylvania published new proposed rules for child care facilities yesterday, October 12, 2018 for public comment prior to hearing and adoption later this year/early next year.

Full link here:
https://www.pabulletin.com/secure/da...8-41/1587.html

I wanted to discuss the following proposed rule regarding monitoring devices when the provider cannot be physically present with the children. (e.g. the provider needs to use the restroom or prepare food for the children)

 (f) While on the family child care home premises, an operator shall use a monitoring device with a video camera or other video or sight technological device to supervise a child if the operator is not able to directly see, hear, direct and assess the activity of the child due to activities such as the need to be in the restroom or for the preparation of meals and snacks. The alternative method of supervision shall only be for the time it takes to complete the specific activity.

[This is the exact proposed language that would be applied to family care homes, which is the type of daycare I operate]

Have other providers experienced this in their state? What has been the impact? Cost? Logistics? In my space, I’m imagining that I would have to have at least three monitoring cameras for the viewing device based on my physical layout. My read of the term technological device would mean that a baby monitor of some sort would suffice. In no way do I want the children to be recorded. I would want real time images only.

Experience? Thoughts?
Not sure if this is the same but in our new rules providers are allowed to use mirrors or sound monitors for supervision periodically but not as a rule for all-the-time use; just as a tool. Make sense?
Reply
kateem02 09:45 AM 10-14-2018
Originally Posted by hwichlaz:
I have cameras that do record. But parents do NOT have access. It's for cover my hiney only They connect to an app on my ipad so I can monitor them. I set it up on a kick stand so that I can watch them all napping in the playroom while I fold laundry in my room or use the restroom.

They cost about $90 each, and I put a 128G SD card in each camera. They have a pretty wide angled lense so I only need 2 to cover where the kids hang out.

I don't think this should be mandated though. It's NOT mandated where we are, in California. I do this to cover my butt in case of an accusation. But this is my home...and those things can be hacked.
I’m surprised cameras are not mandated in California! In Pa, sight/sound applies even during naps. We have to be where the kids are AT.ALL.TIMES. monitors not permitted as a substitute.
Reply
kateem02 09:48 AM 10-14-2018
Originally Posted by Annalee:
Not sure if this is the same but in our new rules providers are allowed to use mirrors or sound monitors for supervision periodically but not as a rule for all-the-time use; just as a tool. Make sense?
The use as a tool seems to be the intent of this prosed rule as well. Maybe mirrors would work since I can hear the children in my space when I’m not within their sight. Thanks for the suggestion.
Reply
Blackcat31 07:08 AM 10-15-2018
I have video cameras (NOT for parental access) for supervision when I am not able to be physically in the room but my state requires sight OR sound so we don't need to physically be in the room at all times.

However, just from reading the rule you posted, it seems you need only purchase a baby monitor that has video (sight) and sound and would meet the requirement easily. No need to invest in an expensive camera system.

Something like this would suffice as it's portable so you can take it with you to the restroom etc.
Reply
Annalee 10:07 AM 10-15-2018
Originally Posted by Blackcat31:
I have video cameras (NOT for parental access) for supervision when I am not able to be physically in the room but my state requires sight OR sound so we don't need to physically be in the room at all times.

However, just from reading the rule you posted, it seems you need only purchase a baby monitor that has video (sight) and sound and would meet the requirement easily. No need to invest in an expensive camera system.

Something like this would suffice as it's portable so you can take it with you to the restroom etc.
Agreed! Or some people here have those store mirrors in the corners of the room near the ceiling.
Reply
MarinaVanessa 01:17 PM 10-16-2018
Originally Posted by kateem02:
Iím surprised cameras are not mandated in California! In Pa, sight/sound applies even during naps. We have to be where the kids are AT.ALL.TIMES. monitors not permitted as a substitute.
Camera's are frowned upon here by licensing. Looks like they'll want sight AND sound soon. We have the new sleep regulations coming and it was unclear if we would be allowed to use camera's to be counted as sight for instances like when infants are napping in another room etc.

I had camera's installed inside my home for my own liability purposes and I had a school ager walk out of my home while I was in the bathroom (some of you will recall a few years back). During the investigation, they tried to make it seem like if I had the camera's as a replacement for supervision. As in, I had camera's to monitor the kids so I didn't have to personally monitor them. I hear that's generally the opinion of most analysts when a provider has camera's/video baby monitors inside
Reply
hwichlaz 04:56 PM 10-16-2018
Originally Posted by MarinaVanessa:
Camera's are frowned upon here by licensing. Looks like they'll want sight AND sound soon. We have the new sleep regulations coming and it was unclear if we would be allowed to use camera's to be counted as sight for instances like when infants are napping in another room etc.

I had camera's installed inside my home for my own liability purposes and I had a school ager walk out of my home while I was in the bathroom (some of you will recall a few years back). During the investigation, they tried to make it seem like if I had the camera's as a replacement for supervision. As in, I had camera's to monitor the kids so I didn't have to personally monitor them. I hear that's generally the opinion of most analysts when a provider has camera's/video baby monitors inside
Luckily that's not the attitude at all here in the north.
I have them to protect me against accusations.
Reply
MarinaVanessa 09:10 AM 10-17-2018
Originally Posted by hwichlaz:
Luckily that's not the attitude at all here in the north.
I have them to protect me against accusations.
This is exactly why I had them too. Apparently, it's unthinkable to ours down here for a provider to need them for our own protection. I brought that up during my appeal after my incident. It helped put a timeline on the events because licensing tried saying that the children were left unsupervised (me in the bathroom) for a long period of time when I was not. The thing that licensing tried to use against me (saying the camera's were there only so that I didn't have to physically supervise the kids) was the thing that helped me out .
Reply
kateem02 10:57 AM 10-20-2018
Thank you for the suggestion, Blackcat, I’ll look into that model.
Reply
Tags:cameras, cctv, monitoring, pennsylvania, proposed rules, security cameras, sight/sound requirement
Reply Up