Assemby Bill 2866

California AB 2866 (Pellerin)

Reviewed by Mark M. Simonian, MD (1/11/2026)

1) Bill snapshot

What AB 2866 does

AB 2866 requires CDSS-licensed childcare facilities that have a swimming pool on the premises to meet specified drowning prevention requirements aligned to (and strengthening beyond) the Swimming Pool Safety Act:

For family day care homes with a pool:

  • Must have at least two safety features from the Act’s list, including one barrier-type feature (enclosure or removable mesh fencing + gate) and one cover/alarm-type feature (approved safety cover or pool-entry alarm).

  • Must also have rescue equipment: a life ring (≥17-inch exterior diameter) and a rescue pole (≥12 feet) readily visible and available.

  • Must perform a daily inspection of safety features before opening and maintain a log for CDSS review during scheduled inspections.

For child day care centers with a pool:

  • Must have at least one specified barrier/access-control feature (enclosure, mesh fence, or indoor controlled-entry door mechanism) plus a second, redundant feature preventing unattended entry to the pool area.

  • Must have the same life ring + rescue pole and daily inspection log requirements.

System change:

  • Requires CDSS to update regulations accordingly.

  • Repeals a statutory provision that currently exempts CDSS-regulated facilities from the Swimming Pool Safety Act (the analysis notes this repeal may be broader than intended and suggests an alternative drafting approach).

Why it exists (problem statement)

The analysis highlights a sentinel event: two infant drowning deaths (and one near-drowning) at a San Jose family childcare home in 2023, involving a pool gate left unsecured and a brief lapse in supervision.
It also notes statewide burden: drowning deaths and near-drowning disability among young children, and ongoing prevention efforts.

 

2) Anticipated benefits (Pros)

A. Strong alignment with “layers of protection” (high pediatric injury-prevention validity)

AB 2866 hardwires redundant protection: a barrier layer (isolation fencing/mesh fencing) plus a secondary layer (cover or alarm), and adds rescue readiness (life ring, rescue pole).

Why this is strong clinically: drowning is fast and silent; environmental barriers and redundancy reduce reliance on perfect supervision.

 

B. Targets a high-risk setting with vulnerable ages

Childcare facilities include infants and toddlers, the age group with highest drowning vulnerability. By making pool safety requirements explicit and logged daily, the bill targets settings where children may be present in groups and where split attention can occur.

 

C. Daily inspection + logging is an implementation “force multiplier”

The daily inspection log requirement is a concrete implementation tool:

  • increases reliability of safety features being functional,

  • creates auditable accountability during CDSS inspections,

  • addresses real-world failure modes (e.g., gate left open).

 

D. Rescue equipment requirement improves emergency response capacity

Requiring an easily visible life ring and rescue pole is a pragmatic secondary prevention step that can reduce time-to-rescue when an event occurs.
(Important caveat: rescue equipment does not replace supervision or barriers.)

 

3) Potential risks and limitations (Cons)

A. Potential unintended breadth: repeal of exemption may affect non-child-care CDSS facilities

The analysis warns that repealing the exemption could apply beyond childcare to other CDSS-licensed facilities (adult care, residential facilities, etc.). It suggests the author consider specifying that childcare facilities are subject to the Act rather than removing the exemption for all CDSS-licensed facilities.

Risk: regulatory overreach or confusion, leading to implementation delays or pushbacks unrelated to childcare pool risk.

 

B. Cost and feasibility burdens for small providers (equity and access concern)

Family daycare homes are often small businesses operating on thin margins. Required upgrades (barriers + alarms/covers + equipment) may impose costs, and could:

  • reduce the number of licensed slots if providers exit,

  • worsen childcare access in lower-resource communities,

  • push some care into unlicensed settings (which may be less safe overall).

This is not an argument against safety upgrades, just a predictable implementation risk that should be mitigated with support.

 

C. Enforcement depends on inspection capacity and consistency

The bill adds requirements that rely on CDSS inspections and review of logs. If inspection frequency or staffing is insufficient, compliance may vary by region.

 

D. Does not directly address staff training (CPR/water rescue) within the bill text provided

The analysis emphasizes equipment and barriers. If staff training requirements aren’t strengthened alongside physical safeguards, there’s a missed opportunity to further reduce harm from rare events that still occur despite prevention.

 

4) Implementation feasibility and practical considerations

What’s strong in the design

  • Specific, operational requirements (not just “have a fence”): redundancy + daily checks + logged documentation.

  • CDSS regulatory update mandate to align licensing standards and inspections.

  • Recognizes the real failure mode from the 2023 drowning case: gates and barriers can fail if not checked daily.

Key implementation needs (to maximize success)

  • Standardized CDSS guidance: what counts as compliant, how to document logs, what constitutes “operable.”

  • Technical assistance for providers (especially small family day care homes).

  • Consider phased compliance windows or funding support so providers can upgrade without closing.

 

5) Health equity lens

Equity upside:

  • Raises safety baseline in settings serving very young children.

  • Could prevent catastrophic outcomes (death or severe hypoxic brain injury) that impose lifelong burdens on families.

Equity risks (if unfunded):

  • Provider closure or reduced licensing in low-income areas.

  • “Safety gap shift” if families move to unlicensed childcare due to reduced supply.

Equity-forward mitigations (strongly recommended for rollout/companion policy):

  • Grants/rebates for pool safety retrofits in licensed childcare homes/centers.

  • Bulk purchasing programs for alarms/covers and rescue equipment.

  • Prioritize support in high-risk counties/ZIP codes.

 

6) Evaluation and goal attainment

AB 2866 is unusually evaluation-friendly because it builds in daily logs and CDSS inspection touchpoints.

A. Process/compliance metrics (Year 1–2)

  1. Facility compliance rate

  • % of licensed childcare facilities with pools meeting the required combination(s)

  1. Inspection-log fidelity

  • % of days with completed logs per facility

  • % of facilities with logs available at CDSS inspection

  1. Functionality

  • % of inspections where barriers/alarms/covers are functional and in safe repair

  1. Corrective action loop

  • time from deficiency identification → correction verified

B. Intermediate outcomes (Year 2–4)

  • Reduction in “unsecured access” citations involving pool gates/doors

  • Increased prevalence of dual-layer safety configurations statewide

  • Optional: staff survey on pool safety practices and adherence to daily checks

C. Health outcomes (Year 3–7)

  • Incidence of:

    • fatal drownings in licensed childcare settings with pools

    • nonfatal submersion injuries (EMS calls, ED visits) in those settings

  • Severity markers among survivors (ICU admissions; hypoxic brain injury proxies if trackable)

D. System impact (important balancing measure)

  • Number of licensed providers with pools over time (monitor for unintended closures)

  • Childcare slot availability and cost in affected communities (equity impact)

 

7) “What success looks like” dashboard (practical targets)

By end of Year 1 after implementation:

  • ≥90% of licensed childcare facilities with pools documented compliant

  • ≥95% of CDSS inspections find daily logs present and up to date

  • ≤5% of inspections find a nonfunctional primary barrier or missing rescue equipment

By Year 3–5:

  • Zero fatal drownings in compliant facilities (aspirational, but appropriate as a sentinel goal)

  • Measurable reduction in pool-access-related safety citations

  • No significant loss of licensed childcare capacity attributable to retrofit costs (or, if observed, mitigated by funding support)

 

8) Rubric-style scoring (pediatric public health lens)

Based on the floor analysis:

A. Evidence basis / mechanism strength: 9 / 10
Redundant barriers + alarms/covers + daily checks are high-plausibility interventions for toddler drowning prevention.

B. Implementation feasibility: 7.5 / 10
Strong operationalization (logs, equipment) and CDSS regulatory update, but success depends on inspection capacity and provider support.

C. Health equity design: 6.5 / 10
High equity potential but cost burdens could reduce childcare access unless paired with financial/technical supports.

D. Evaluation/accountability: 8.5 / 10
Daily inspection logs + CDSS oversight create unusually trackable compliance infrastructure.

Overall: ~8 / 10
A strong child safety bill with excellent built-in accountability; the biggest improvement opportunity is preventing inequitable impacts on childcare availability through support.

Detail 2

Nulla lectus ante, consequat et ex eget, feugiat tincidunt metus. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Aliquam bibendum, turpis eu mattis iaculis, ex lorem mollis sem, ut sollicitudin risus orci quis tellus. Donec ac fringilla turpis. Nullam sit amet nisi condimentum erat iaculis auctor. Quisque congue porttitor ullamcorper. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

Detail 3

Aliquam bibendum, turpis eu mattis iaculis, ex lorem mollis sem, ut sollicitudin risus orci quis tellus. Nulla lectus ante, consequat et ex eget, feugiat tincidunt metus. Integer tempus, elit in laoreet posuere, lectus neque blandit dui, et placerat urna diam mattis orci. Nulla eu pretium massa.