Licensing Rules: Where Does Your State Fall?

[craftymissbeth]

I've owned a licensed daycare in two different counties in KS, and I've found that not only do regulations vary greatly from state to state, but the state regulations' interpretations by the surveyors vary greatly from county to county! I don't think any of KS regs are unnecessary, and I don't find them to be unreasonably hard to follow. They're pretty tough on not spreading germs: washing hands when kids arrive in the morning, before/after every meal, after every toileting/diaper changing, after being outside, and after handling pets... so about 20 times a day. But the surveyors really make the difference. I used to have one that was a NAZI and I swear made up her own rules...I would have to call Topeka and clarify them with her supervisor it got so ridiculous. But here in KC area, I LOVE my surveyors, and I know they are on my team.

Anyway, to sum up: I think KS has great regs that are for the safety and well being of the kids, and I don't think I'd change any of them. If you'd like to see a copy: http://www.kdheks.gov/bcclr/regs/day...care_regs.html

Just the difference in the two surveyors in my county is significant.

[mema]

You are welcome!

My state (MN) sends out reports for ALL licensed facilities that receive correction orders or licensing violations and/or negative action orders.

I read daily the number of providers who violate the same rule over and over and there is often little or no recourse. ALL of which makes me sick.

For example, this week alone I've read about 14 different providers/centers that were cited (and some fined) for violation of safe sleep practices. The biggest fine is $100 REGARDLESS it seems of whether it's the 1st or 15th time the provider has been cited before.

It makes me mad to see that so many states have failed in this capacity as well as in meeting the requirements they themselves put in place.

Isn't it $200 for safe sleep? Not that it makes that much difference. There was a provider in my area that received a $200 fine for not having a sheet on a pnp even tho there was no baby in care that day-only preschoolers. Another got one for taking off the sheet and putting it in the wash and not replacing instantly (baby got sick-was taking care of her and getting her out the door when licensing showed for annual visit).

I think there definitely needs to be lots of things changed. Hearing things that happen on one side of the state vs the other and are completely different. Licensors view the rules different. Even within the county. Ours don't always agree, interpret or enforce the same.

[spinnymarie]

In one of the discussions here, a few weeks ago, someone had mentioned that the federal government is trying to phase out family child care, and the more I think about it, the more I tend to believe it. I would not be surprised to find out that was the plan, at least. By driving all the licensed providers clinically insane with red tape they will achieve the goal.

If that's the case, then I think the country in general is trying to phase out all of education I've found that the amount of red tape for HDC is no different than the red tape I had to endure as a public school teacher - it's just slightly different things and there is no one else helping me out!

[Annalee]

PA scored 0 I am so not surprised I am a group home but rent a space for my dc. My licensor wrote me up because I didn't have a copy of my rules and regs in both my dc rooms ( even tho they are connected by an OPEN archway), but has never asked even ONE question about my program, how my schedule reflects my day, what I even have planned for the day etc. Nothing about the dcks at all ever!!! When she is here, it's an hour max.

I hear ya! funny thing is providers can make anything on paper look good for licensing, but if licensing would check the things you mentioned about actual program set-up for the children, we would NOT have needed this UNREALISTIC QRIS SYSTEM!

[llpa]

I hear ya! funny thing is providers can make anything on paper look good for licensing, but if licensing would check the things you mentioned about actual program set-up for the children, we would NOT have needed this UNREALISTIC QRIS SYSTEM!

[Heidi]

I hear ya! funny thing is providers can make anything on paper look good for licensing, but if licensing would check the things you mentioned about actual program set-up for the children, we would NOT have needed this UNREALISTIC QRIS SYSTEM!

Honestly, for even a quarter of that money, they could have hired a lot more licensers, right?

Oh, and if they need more money, FINE people who are running illegally or have multiple serious non-compliances. Not $100 or $200 dollars for safe-sleep, though. I'd make that one a big fine!

[Unregistered]

I'm not to certain what's up with replying to this thread it shows I'm unregistered to post even though when I read only I am signed in. Plus no posting aids available. ?????

"Oh, and if they need more money, FINE people who are running illegally or have multiple serious non-compliances. Not $100 or $200 dollars for safe-sleep, though. I'd make that one a big fine!"

I wish they'd shut them down!

I'm in MI and read on BC's report that we would have been in the top five but because they don't inspect pre opening we got a zero. We are inspected within 90 days and before the license is issued.

[Blackcat31]

Isn't it $200 for safe sleep? Not that it makes that much difference. There was a provider in my area that received a $200 fine for not having a sheet on a pnp even tho there was no baby in care that day-only preschoolers. Another got one for taking off the sheet and putting it in the wash and not replacing instantly (baby got sick-was taking care of her and getting her out the door when licensing showed for annual visit).

I think there definitely needs to be lots of things changed. Hearing things that happen on one side of the state vs the other and are completely different. Licensors view the rules different. Even within the county. Ours don't always agree, interpret or enforce the same.

Yes, you are right... I see I wrote $100... My bad. It is $200 but the fine does not increase for repeated occurrences... so what is the point??

I've read a couple reports where the provider has so many violations that the report is several pages but the provider is still allowed to operate.

I think there needs to be a better system of consequences for repeat offenders....you know so there really aren't so many repeat offenders.. I don't understand why that is rocket science for some??? :confused:

[Blackcat31]

I think you must be correct that the inspectors here are not to make any exceptions. I do feel that they should be able to take things into account and use some common sense judgement in certain situations, though. Here is an example of something that I was cited for that I thought to be totally unnecessary. This is the kind of thing that I am talking about when I say 'they are going to drive the providers insane'. One of my dck's enrollment forms was cited as incomplete, because I did not have father's specific place of employment listed. DCD is a logger, so the form said self-employed logger at XYZ logz. As far as a location, he does not have anything specific to list. He is in the woods, and could be about anywhere at any given time. His cell phone number is listed, but the licensor wanted a specific physical place of employment. What the heck? You want GPS coordinates? Now I have a public record of non-compliance because of that. Those little things just bug me I guess. I'm a bit of a perfectionist, I realize. I just don't like having a non-compliance for something like that.

OMG!! Are you serious????

That is absolutely ridiculous and absolutely asinine!!

Next time, you just write down the VIN number of his logging truck... Good grief! That is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read about a provider being cited.

there are NOT enough eye rolls to convey my true feelings.... *sigh*

[Heidi]

Yes, you are right... I see I wrote $100... My bad. It is $200 but the fine does not increase for repeated occurrences... so what is the point??

I've read a couple reports where the provider has so many violations that the report is several pages but the provider is still allowed to operate.

I think there needs to be a better system of consequences for repeat offenders....you know so there really aren't so many repeat offenders.. I don't understand why that is rocket science for some??? :confused:

Wow...I was reading some of the suggestions, and they seem a bit over the top. I know other states (CA?) require licensing for more than one unrelated family, but seriously! How on earth would they ever enforce THAT when they can't enforce illegals with 12 or 15? :confused:

Again...make the regulations a bit more realistic, and ENFORCE them! I wonder why it's rocket science for the state? ::

[drseuss]

Yep, that's what I'm talking about. Like I said, I'm a rule follower and my licensor always tells me how easy I make her job. Are they supposed to find something to cite providers on when they can't really find anything? KWIM?

Another example: my mom stopped over on her way home to drop eggs off for me. Licensor was here conducting a visit. Mom left her car running, popped in and set the eggs down, her dog ran in and out of the house, and she was gone. That day I got cited because I do not have my mom's dog's rabies vaccination on file. Online, the violation reads that provider does not have rabies vaccination on file for Fido. COME ON!! No pun intended, but throw me a bone.

FTR, I do like my licensor. She is professional and has always been very positive, encouraging, and complementary toward me. These little things though...

[drseuss]

OMG!! Are you serious????

That is absolutely ridiculous and absolutely asinine!!

Next time, you just write down the VIN number of his logging truck... Good grief! That is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read about a provider being cited.

there are NOT enough eye rolls to convey my true feelings.... *sigh*

Or I could have DCD get a microchip in his rear.

[Blackcat31]

Wonder if that would be tax deductible?

[TwinKristi]

Wow...I was reading some of the suggestions, and they seem a bit over the top. I know other states (CA?) require licensing for more than one unrelated family, but seriously! How on earth would they ever enforce THAT when they can't enforce illegals with 12 or 15? :confused:

Again...make the regulations a bit more realistic, and ENFORCE them! I wonder why it's rocket science for the state? ::

This is a very silly thing and I agree, how can they possibly enforce this? I know several SAHMs who watch kids, more than 1, and think nothing of posting ads on Facebook, CL, etc. One of my DCMs left to be a SAHM and now watches other people's kids, under the table at that, and asks me for advice! LOL :: I tried to get her to do it legit and join the food program and that's when she told me she didn't want there to be any "paper trails" for her. But people always getting away with this. I actually have a suspicion that a provider nearby doesn't actually have her license or something, because she knows she's supposed to advertise WITH her number by law, but never does. She's had quite a few infractions over the years (serious things like a DWI accident, leaving medications/cleaners accessible to children and minor things like not having updated records, not having earthquake drills logged, etc.) but hasn't even been inspected in almost 5yrs, since Oct 2009 I believe.

[blandino]

No surprise to me that my state, OK, got a 120. The only negatives were for provider training hours and no fingerprinting. The fingerprinting has been remedied as of last Nov.

I know this opinion will resonate with you all. This high number doesn't equal quality childcare in OK. OKDHS follows the letter of the law without paying attention to the spirit of the law. I know legally the have to be precise, but all these rules and regs have not created a idillic childcare environment in OK.