Unlicensed Providers ?????

[mommyneedsadayoff]

I can't say I have a ton of faith in DHS in my state. We just got a lovely report that an audit of the DHS showed some pretty sad stuff.

"...found child care providers were allowed to continue operating while the state’s largest agency was aware of instances of illegal drug use and “inappropriate touching from adults.

The audit said the department’s “monitoring procedures performed by the central and regional offices are ineffective."

The significant errors identified in our testing of child care provider licensing indicate these reviews are clearly ineffective at identifying material weaknesses and inconsistencies,” the audit states. “These situations include failure to identify incomplete application requirements, improperly licensed providers, nonperformance of unannounced inspections, backdated licenses, lack of monitoring of corrective orders, non-imposed sanctions, and lack of documented notification to parents for serious safety concerns.”

[Miss A]

In Iowa we have registered-rules, unannounced inspections or unregistered-no inspections, a couple of requirements but no way to enforce them...both legal as long as you're within numbers. If you want to specialize in infants you're better going unregistered since you can have 5 of any age. There are three levels to registered where you can have a couple more children but you can never have more than 3 under 18 months/4 under 24 months if registered. So I understand why someone in this state who wanted to watch infants only would be unregistered.
If you operate illegally in Iowa you get a letter telling you to stop and then...nothing. Next time someone complains you get a letter, maybe a visit but doubtful and since you're unregistered it's not like you have to let them in and talk to them. It's sad and is a constant topic of debate in my providers group where most registered providers don't have enough children enrolled to require them to be registered.
For the record I'm registered, do QRS and all of the other programs because that's the future of care I often wonder why I jump through the hoops though.

I am a unregistered provider in Iowa, and I watch infants and young toddlers right now. I choose to be unregistered because of the low numbers, and the fact that my insurance put a cap on the number of children I can have in my home, 5 being the max.

Even though I am unregistered, I choose to operate like I am registered. I keep all the required paperwork on file, I perform all the safety drills and keep records, I have a emergency reunification plan laid out, and while I don't need to take classes and trainings for credit hours, I take those that are local are are of interest to me.

I work hard to operate a high quality, legally unregistered program. Those who choose to operate illegally unlicensed put us all at risk. If I have to move to being licensed, I will probably leave the daycare field.

[Sunchimes]

Ok, I'm back and signed in now. I'm the Unregistered that is old and hoping for 2 more years and the one that said something about blanket judgements, not the one that explained how to keep people out.

Just to be clear, I am a legal home, and I'll stay legal as long as they keep my license level. Even though I have no inspections or standards, I try to operate by the rules of a registered home. If they stop listed homes before I turn 65, I'll have to re-assess.

I re-read the thread and I can't remember my thoughts about the blanket statement comment. It made sense when I wrote it, but I couldn't get back soon enough to remember my train of thought. I don't like the idea of the people who operate illegally without background checks, classes, CPR, etc. They are my biggest competition. Any time someone posts on the local FB pages looking for daycare, a dozen stay at home moms leap in to volunteer. I know from seeing the same names over and over that they are keeping more than the 3 kids I'm allowed. I also know that a lot of them don't last because I see the moms advertising again in a few weeks. Out of curiosity, I sometimes look at the FB page of people offering to keep the kids. I've seen some really scary stuff on their pages, half naked pictures, cigarettes, lots of live in boyfriends, etc. Makes me wonder if the young moms even think to worry about that. Which seems to conflict with my next paragraph. ::

My biggest issue is the part about letting parents choose. It just seems wrong that if they stop my listed license levels, my parents wouldn't be allowed to bring their children to me any longer (I only have 3). If they were comfortable with me, I just believe they should be given that option. They are the parents after all. It just makes me uncomfortable to have the government telling parents who is allowed to keep their kids without making me an outlaw.

I never even considered not being licensed at some level, and if I could have afforded to put central heat into this historic home, I would have done it and become a registered home. But, that's a moot point. I couldn't, so as long as they will allow listed homes to remain valid, I'm staying. If they stop, I would have to make a decision to lose my business and the $ it produces or continue to keep one or two kids anyway. At my age, I'm not sure being registered and all that it would involve would be feasible anyway.

Fingers and toes crossed that I get too old and feeble to work before they change the requirements.