Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, February 15, 1993 TAG: 9302150097
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: WARREN FISKE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Long
CHURCHES' DAY CARE UNCHECKED ASSEMBLY MAY OK STATE INSPECTIONS
The law that has allowed church-run day-care centers to escape state inspection for 13 years is hanging by a single vote in the state Senate.A proposal that would have allowed state inspectors to enter religious day-care centers was defeated 20-18 in the Senate last week. With the matter scheduled to be revisited later this month, proponents are trying to switch one vote to create a tie and allow Lt. Gov. Don Beyer, who favors regulating the church centers, to provide a majority.
"If we can get one more vote, we might be able to get this thing out," said state Sen. Stanley Walker, D-Norfolk, the patron of the bill.
The House, voting 49-43 last week, approved limited church inspections as part of a comprehensive bill to reform Virginia's day-care laws, now considered among the weakest in the nation. The Senate must vote on the House bill before the end of the month.
With the legislation so closely contested, activists are lobbying furiously. Joining child advocates last week to press for added church regulations was the League of Women Voters, whose members have begun contacting senators who voted against the legislation.
An equally vigorous campaign against new regulations is being waged by conservative, independent Baptist churches. Their leaders argue that the inspections infringe on religious freedom. Many lawmakers said they have received dozens of phone calls from church members back home.
"Day-cares are a part of our ministry; they are a forum . . . for taking the Gospel of Jesus Christ into the homes of our community," said the Rev. Jack Knapp, executive director of the Virginia Assembly of Independent Baptists, an organization of about 400 churches. "Regulating our day-care centers is the same thing as regulating our ministries. It's unacceptable."
Reform advocates say the bill would not infringe on religious freedom because regulations would be limited and there would be no restriction on teachings in a church-run center. The issue, they say, is whether churches should be required to conform to basic safety standards.
Many mainline church groups - including the Catholic Diocese of Richmond - support the proposed church regulations. "Faith does not make us child-care experts," said Stephen Colecchi, a spokesman for the diocese.
All 18 Senate Republicans voted against new church regulations. They were led by Mark Earley, R-Chesapeake, who argued that state inspections of church-run centers could allow an unscrupulous governor in the future to harass religious bodies.
"How would you feel if [former Ku Klux Klan leader] David Duke was elected governor and you were running a day-care center at a Jewish synagogue?" he asked.
Two rural Democrats - Sens. Elmo Cross of Hanover County and Frank Nolen of Augusta - also voted against the legislation, expressing fear that any added regulation could further restrict an already limited supply of day care in their districts. Several proponents of the bill said Cross may be their best hope for changing his vote.
Increasing church regulation is the most controversial part of a comprehensive day-care reform bill before the General Assembly.
Both Houses have approved new regulations for centers run in private homes, for-profit centers, and those run by local governments. But advocates, noting that both houses also have agreed to exempt 140 private schools from licensing, say there would be little overall improvement in the law should churches escape new regulations.
"The vast number of children will still not be watched by the state," said Mary Ellen Verdu, director of the state Council on Child Day Care and Early Childhood Development.
"It would be a baby step forward," she added. "Some say you have to accept modest gains in politics. But there is concern by child advocates that the General Assembly will say: `This is our response. We've solved the problem. Now go away.' "
Knapp and his supporters argue that the bill would not increase the safety of children in church-run centers.
Knapp said most exempt churches voluntarily meet or exceed state standards; efforts to mandate hand-washing and first aid smack of "nannyism," he argued. Knapp noted that church centers must pass annual local health and fire inspections before receiving a religious exemption.
"If we're not washing our hands after changing diapers, the local health departments can already put us out of business," he said. "Why do we need the state to do the same thing?"
But state regulators say the health departments only give restaurant-like inspections to a church's kitchen and water supply. And fire departments only conduct a normal building review.
"These are inspections of the structural integrity of the center," said Carolynne H. Stevens, director of state day-care licensing. Matters relating to the direct care of children, such as hand washing, "are never inspected," she added.
Knapp said there are safeguards on the treatment of children at religious centers. He noted that local social-service departments are empowered to enter churches to investigate child-abuse complaints.
Even so, Stevens said, opponents of the bill are missing its point. "The whole point of regulation is to try to prevent injuries, not to respond after children have been hurt."
More than 80 percent of the 600,000 Virginia children in day care attend facilities unregulated by the state. One reason is that Virginia is among only 10 states that exempt church-run facilities from licensing.
Churches can avoid licensing by stating in writing that they have a required ratio of staff to children and that all employees have had health checkups. They also must pass local fire and kitchen inspections. About 270 churches - two-thirds of those offering day-care services - opt for the exemption.
The bill now before the General Assembly would allow state inspectors to visit those centers once a year to verify information submitted by the churches. In addition, church day cares would be required to keep someone on hand trained in first aid, someone at a front desk to monitor all children entering and leaving the facility, and to have employees wash their hands after changing diapers.
Even with those provisions, churches would be required to meet only a fraction of the rules imposed on for-profit day-care centers. For example, churches would not be required to remove asbestos from playrooms, ban spanking or to conduct criminal records checks on employees.
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1993