1. IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN EARLY EDUCATION AND CARE SETTINGS
EEC Board Meeting - December 13, 2011

2. Recommendations from the Special Committee on Transportation
Final Board Vote of October 11, 2011:
The Board of Early Education and Care hereby approves the Special Committee’s recommendations by:
Enacting the transportation policy recommended by the Special Committee that details the procedures for the drop-off and pick-up of children by Transportation Providers and for Parent/Program Notification in the event a child does not arrive at a program;
Reviewing the proposed Transportation Provider Performance Standards for contract implementation in an expedited manner; and
Reviewing regulation amendments relative to the safe transport of children to be presented to the Board in December, 2011.

3. Transportation Policy
All EEC Licensed Providers notified on November 2, 2011 that Transportation Policy to go into effect December 1, 2011
Based upon several questions and issues raised by programs, Transportation Providers, and public schools EEC reviewed and revised Transportation Policy; issued November 28, 2011 with an effective date of December 12, 2011
Requires regulation amendment to include notification if child fails to arrive at the program as scheduled
The Transportation Policy issued on November 28th streamlined the pick-up and drop-off procedures and clarified that:
When a child, who is transported to a child care program by a Transportation Provider, does not arrive within thirty minutes of his or her regularly scheduled arrival time and the parent or guardian has not provided notification of absence or delay, the provider shall immediately contact the Transportation Provider to determine whether the child was picked up that day, and if so, to determine the child’s location. If the Transportation Provider cannot be reached, the provider shall then contact the parent or guardian to inform the parent or guardian that the child has not arrived. If the parent or guardian cannot be reached directly (i.e. if the provider does not directly speak with a parent), the provider shall then contact the child’s emergency contact person. If a provider is unable to reach the Transportation Provider, parent/guardian or emergency contact, the provider should contact the Family Child Care System or the umbrella organization applicable to that program to determine the location of the child.
Proposed language would be included with 606 CMR Family Involvement, (8) Notifications to Parents and state that licensee must inform parents whenever a child does not arrive at the program as scheduled, unless parents have previously notified the program of the child’s absence or alternative arrival time.

4. Provider Responsibility
The Early Education and Care Licensed Provider shall be responsible for full compliance with EEC’s transportation laws/policies, regardless of how transportation is provided.
Policy and Research Committee Input:
Some committee members suggested that provider responsibility should be determined based upon type of care provided, i.e. a family child care provider associated with a Family Child Care System should not be responsible for assuming responsibility for a child during transport.
Next Step:
Requires regulation amendment to clarify EEC Licensed Provider’s responsibility for a child during transport and transition to and from the program whenever the transportation is owned or contracted by the Provider.
Regulations state that whenever a licensee provides or contracts for transportation for children (606 CMR 7.13 (3)) licensee must establish:
policies and procedures that are intended to keep children safe during transport and transition to and from the program.
Policies and procedures must specify:
5. who is responsible for the supervision of children while being transported, prior to their arrival at the program;
6. who is responsible to ensure that children transition safely between the transportation vehicle and the program and/or the child’s home or school, as appropriate

5. Vehicle Monitoring:
All Transportation Providers shall ensure that vehicles designed to transport 6+ children shall be equipped with approved electronic vehicle monitoring devices that prompt staff to inspect. Vehicle monitoring devices are not required for vehicles that carry an assigned monitor, that only transport school aged children, unless the children are developmentally or physically disabled or on vehicles that are only used for occasional field trips or other similar trips.
Department’s Recommendations:
When 4 or more children are transported by a Transportation Provider, an electronic vehicle monitoring device is required in the vehicle.
EEC would have to assume cost of this mandate unless the daily transportation rate is increased.
EEC regulations state that when more than 8 children are being transported, an attendant is required. As currently stated, recommendation from Special Committee that those vehicles transporting 6 or more children shall be equipped with electronic monitoring devices. Leaves a window of children from 6-8 only. Needs to be lower

6. Relevant Information:
2010 – 49 children under age of 14 died of hyperthermia- related injuries when left in vehicles; half were forgotten on way to child care (not differentiated as by parent or by other driver)
July, 2011 – 21 children under age of 14 died of hyperthermia- related injuries
(Source: San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences)
July 28, National Highway Transportation Safety Association began series of roundtable meetings with key stake- holders to raise awareness and to propose strategies to address these types of incidents; Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Ohio State University working on joint research to determine effectiveness of various devices, including electronic vehicle monitoring devices, are effective. Final Report due by 12/31/11
Policy and Research committee asked EEC to provide additional research and data regarding when electronic vehicle monitoring devices have been used and examples of when such a device saved a child. Still researching but there appears to be a research study coming out that may contain this information. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Ohio State University jointly researching to determine if EVMDs are effective in both detecting the presence of a child in a car and alerting the caregiver.

7. Additional Steps:
Department has contacted MA Department of Transportation and Registry of Motor Vehicles to ensure alignment with 7D vehicle regulations and impact of such a requirement, if any, on these agencies.
Policy and Research committee asked EEC to provide additional research and data regarding when electronic vehicle monitoring devices have been used and examples of when such a device saved a child. Still researching but there appears to be a research study coming out that may contain this information. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Ohio State University jointly researching to determine if EVMDs are effective in both detecting the presence of a child in a car and alerting the caregiver.

8. Window Tinting:
All Transportation Providers shall ensure that vehicles that transport children do not have window tinting.
Relevant Regulation: 540 CMR 4.04(8)(g)
Aftermarket tinting or alterations that do not change the transparency beyond that of the standards set forth in 49 CFR Part is acceptable on windows immediately adjacent to the operator and front passenger seat, the windows immediately to the rear of the operator and front passenger seat and the rear window. If the rear window has any aftermarket tinting or alterations, the vehicle must be equipped with two outside rear view mirrors.
EEC requires that vehicles used for  transportation of 8 or fewer passengers, conform to M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 7D. 
Relevant regulation for 7D vehicles is 540 CMR Semi-Annual Safety Inspection of School Pupil Transport Vehicles. Section 21.03(1) (d) provides that any window tinting shall comply with 540 CMR 4.04.
Boston City Councilors Ayanna Pressley and John Connolly proposed an amendment to city ordinances to insert a new section prohibiting use of tinted windows in certain vehicles:
No person shall operate a motor vehicle in the City of Boston for the purposes of transporting children to school or daycare facilities that uses nontransparent material, window application, reflective film, non-reflective film in any way to cover or treat the front windshield, side windows adjacent to the right and left of the operator’s seat and the side windows to the rear of the operator’s seat and the front passenger seat and the rear window. Those equipped in accordance with 49 CFR Part and material designed and manufactured to enhance the ability of the existing window glass to block out the sun’s harmful ultraviolet A rays shall be exempt from this section.
Currently in Committee on Government Operations.

9. Department’s Recommendations:
Require that vehicles that transport child care children comply with the RMV’s regulations and the federal standards set forth in 49 CFR Part
Work with the RMV and MASSDOT to ensure that window tinting is enforced during semi-annual inspections. If determined that window tinting is non-compliant, Transportation Provider is required to remediate within timeframe established by RMV.
Require all Transportation Providers to annually provide a copy of 7D inspection for each vehicle transporting children along with VIN, Registration number, and type of vehicle pending receipt of additional EEC licensor who would assume this responsibility.
Additional Steps:
Requires alignment with MASSDOT and RMV regulations and requirements for 7D vehicles and school buses.

10. Proposed Contract Amendment and Regulation Promulgation Timetable
Confer with RMV, DOT, and HST for alignment with existing state regulations, impact of proposed requirements, and to determine if EEC can develop additional process for monitoring vehicles; further review of proposed Transportation Provider Performance Standards with these agencies and with outside stakeholders
December, 2011 – January 31, 2012
Proposed Regulation Amendments brought to Policy and Research Committee for review; feedback on Performance Standards brought to Committee
February 6, 2012
Potential Board Vote on Regulation Amendments to go to Public Comment
Finalization of Performance Standards with Contract Amendments to Income Eligible Contract Providers and Priority Population Contract Providers
February 14, 2012
March – April, 2012