Senate Bill 855

SB 855 (Perrin)

CDPH Drowning Prevention Pilot Program Overview (enacted via SB 855, Ch. 817, Statutes of 2022).

Reviewed Mark M. Simonian, MD (1/12/2026)

 

1) Bill / Program snapshot

What SB 855 establishes (as implemented by CDPH)

SB 855 is the statutory foundation for a 3-year Drowning Prevention Pilot Program run by CDPH (IVPB), operating Jan 2024–Dec 2026, to move California toward a comprehensive, coordinated, data-driven drowning prevention approach.

Core activities

  1. Partner with 5–10 counties to collect enhanced data on fatal and non-fatal drownings.

  2. Convene an expert advisory group anchored in the California Water Safety Coalition (CWSC) Data Workgroup.

  3. Develop standard drowning data reporting protocols and electronic forms suitable for statewide use.

  4. Submit two legislative reports:

    • Jan 1, 2026: progress + recommendations for improving pool safety

    • Jan 1, 2027: final report including a California Water Safety Action Plan for Children, with recommendations for an ongoing surveillance system and evidence-based policies/best practices

Primary goal

Develop an approach for a statewide drowning surveillance system with consistent reporting and analysis to identify risk/protective factors (e.g., pool barriers, swim lessons) and guide effective interventions and policies.

 

2) Anticipated benefits (Pros)

A. High scientific validity: surveillance is foundational for effective prevention

From a pediatric public health perspective, SB 855 targets a major barrier in drowning prevention: fragmented, inconsistent data. Better surveillance enables the state to identify:

  • who is drowning (age, demographics),

  • where (home pools, open water, bathtubs, etc.),

  • how (barrier failure, lack of supervision, substance involvement),

  • and which factors are modifiable.

This is a classic “systems” intervention: it doesn’t directly prevent drownings on day one, but it can materially improve the effectiveness of every downstream policy.

 

B. Includes both fatal and non-fatal drowning data (critical for pediatric impact)

Non-fatal drowning can cause lifelong disability and focusing only on deaths undercounts burden. SB 855’s pilot explicitly includes fatal and non-fatal drownings.

 

C. Builds multi-sector collaboration (HiAP-style strength)

The advisory group and county partnerships inherently require coordination across:

  • public health,

  • EMS/fire/first responders,

  • hospitals/EDs,

  • child death review teams,

  • local government.

This increases feasibility of sustained statewide adoption later.

 

D. Creates tangible deliverables and deadlines

The two required legislative reports create accountability and force outputs (recommendations + action plan) on a schedule.

 

E. Leverages existing infrastructure and national alignment

The pilot builds on:

  • CWSC data workgroup planning,

  • CDRTs (Child Death Review Teams),

  • and coordination/technical assistance opportunities with NCFRP’s national pilot for standardized drowning investigation forms.

This increases standardization and reduces “reinventing the wheel.”

 

3) Potential risks and limitations (Cons)

A. Surveillance is upstream, health outcome impact may be delayed

The pilot’s primary product is better data, not immediate policy change. If data don’t translate into funded interventions, the program risks being viewed as “reporting without impact.”

Mitigation: tie the action plan to implementable policies with identified owners, costs, and timelines.

 

B. County participation may bias findings if not representative

With 5–10 counties, selection matters. If pilot counties are mostly well-resourced or uniquely motivated, the resulting system may not generalize to counties with limited infrastructure.

Mitigation: includes a diverse mix (urban/rural, coastal/inland, high/low drowning burden, varied capacity).

 

C. Data quality, interoperability, and burden on local partners

Enhanced incident reporting can be labor-intensive. Inconsistent definitions or incomplete fields reduce usefulness. Local systems (EMS/fire, hospitals, coroners, CDRTs) often don’t share data easily.

Mitigation: minimize data burden (smart forms), provide technical assistance, and prioritize a small set of high-value fields.

 

D. Privacy, data governance, and cross-system linkage challenges

Linking ED/hospital data, vital stats, first responder reports, and child death reviews is powerful but complex. Without clear governance, data sharing can stall.

Mitigation: establish standardized data use agreements and a clear state governance model early.

 

E. Scope expansion to adults may dilute child focus (depending on resources)

The overview notes philanthropic support expands data to adult drownings too.
That can be beneficial for statewide systems, but the child-focused “Action Plan for Children” must remain appropriately resourced and not crowded out.

 

4) Implementation feasibility and practical considerations

Strengths

  • Defined timeline (2024–2026) and clear outputs (protocols/forms + 2 reports).

  • Uses existing county and coalition structures to accelerate uptake.

  • Includes a data workplan using multiple existing sources (CDRT, first responder reports in select counties, vital stats, ED/hospital discharge), plus evaluation of prior policies (e.g., 2017 pool safety law).

Implementation vulnerabilities to watch

  • Whether counties can reliably capture non-fatal drowning incidents (harder than fatalities).

  • Whether forms will be adopted beyond pilot counties after 2026.

  • Whether the final action plan includes sustainable funding mechanisms.

 

5) Health equity lens

Equity strengths:

  • A statewide surveillance model can identify disparities by race/ethnicity, geography, and setting, enabling targeted prevention.

  • Asset mapping and county interviews can surface inequities in prevention infrastructure (e.g., lack of swim instruction access, poor barrier compliance).

Equity risks:

  • If pilot counties are not diverse, the surveillance model may miss disparities in under-resourced regions.

  • If data collection improves more in some counties than others, the state may systematically undercount drowning burden in marginalized communities (creating a resource allocation bias).

Equity safeguard recommendation: require equity-oriented field capture and reporting (e.g., consistent demographic fields; location type; barrier presence; swim lessons exposure) and ensure county selection includes high-disparity settings.

 

6) Evaluation and goal attainment

SB 855 is itself an “evaluation and system-building” bill. Success should be judged by deliverables + adoption + data quality + translation into policy.

A. Process metrics (Year 1–2)

  • of participating counties recruited (target: 5–10 as planned)

  • Advisory group convened and meeting cadence achieved

  • Standardized electronic forms/protocols drafted, piloted, and iterated

  • % completeness of required data fields in pilot submissions

  • Time from incident to entry (timeliness)

B. Intermediate outcomes (Year 2–3)

  • Demonstrated ability to produce consistent county-to-county comparisons

  • Identification of top modifiable risk factors (e.g., barrier failures, lapses in supervision, alcohol, lack of swim lessons) supported by pilot data

  • Evidence that pilot outputs inform concrete local interventions in participating counties

C. End-of-pilot outcomes (2026–2027 deadlines)

  • Legislative report delivered by Jan 1, 2026 with pool safety recommendations

  • Final report delivered by Jan 1, 2027 including:

    • A Water Safety Action Plan for Children

    • Recommendations for ongoing surveillance system

    • evidence-based policies and best practices

D. Translation-to-impact (post-2027, critical)

  • Adoption of statewide surveillance (budgeted, staffed)

  • Implementation of recommended evidence-based policies (barrier laws, swim access, education, enforcement)

  • Over time: reduction in drowning morbidity/mortality and narrowing of disparities (these are longer-term, but must be planned for)

 

7) “What success looks like” dashboard

By end of 2024

  • Pilot counties onboarded, data collection workflows operational

  • Core data fields standardized and ≥80% complete

By end of 2025

  • Preliminary analyses identify leading modifiable factors by age group and setting

  • Draft statewide protocol and electronic form ready for scaling

  • Early policy recommendations vetted with stakeholders

By Jan 1, 2026

  • First report delivered with actionable pool safety recommendations

By end of 2026

  • Pilot demonstrates feasibility across diverse county systems

  • Clear cost estimate + governance plan for statewide surveillance

By Jan 1, 2027

  • Final report + “Action Plan for Children” delivered with:

    • surveillance blueprint

    • prioritized interventions

    • measurable targets and responsible agencies

 

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

A. Evidence basis / mechanism strength: 8 / 10
Surveillance is foundational; strong public health logic and likely high leverage.

B. Implementation feasibility: 7.5 / 10
Clear structure, uses existing partners, but cross-system data integration is hard.

C. Health equity design: 7 / 10
High potential to reveal and address disparities; actual equity impact depends on county selection and data field design.

D. Evaluation/accountability: 9 / 10
This bill is built around evaluation: protocols, county pilots, and two dated legislative reports.

Overall: ~8 / 10
A strong “infrastructure” bill with excellent accountability; biggest success determinant is whether the pilot outputs translate into funded statewide surveillance and evidence-based interventions.