Illegal But Excellent? Opinions Please :)

[TomCopeland]

Illegal

My two cents on this issue:
* I think everyone agrees that keeping children safe is the number one priority for family child care providers. Licensing rules provide a minimum of health and safety standards. Many illegal providers probably do not meet these standards. That's a problem.
* Illegal providers can't get business liability insurance. Even though a lot of licensed providers don't have this insurance, everyone should. All providers without such insurance run a great financial risk.
* Illegal care undermines the entire child care industry by making it very difficult for parents to sort out what quality care is.
* Changing the child care industry so that we have reasonable and accountable health and safety rules is difficult. However, it needs to be done. Until all child care providers and child care organizations push for this, it won't happen.

[mommyneedsadayoff]

I understand the illegal versus legal argument, but in this case, I do not think legal or illegal means ANYTHING when it comes to the safety and care of a child. Every state has different standards, so what is illegal in one, is completely legal in another. In this case, legal/illegal lose all meaning, which is why this is a never ending debate. If CA says that for the safety of the children, you must be licensed to watch ANY number of kids, then that should hold true in every other state. Since ND (my state) says that I can watch 5 kids without being licensed, it really has nothing to do with safety or quality care. It has to do with MONEY. If you want to make extra money watching kids in CA, you will have to pay money first (unless they are related to you, in which case, you can watch as many as you want...hmmm). In ND, you can make a living without having the state involved at all.

This happens in all areas besides childcare. In TX, they started doing phot tickets at stop lights. They said it was reduce people running lights and for the safety of the roadways. It was only in certain cities, so as I was driving from Frisco into Richardson, I would go through a town that had them, but also through 3 that did not. Research showed there was no actual reduction in accidents because of them, but the cities who had them, got $75 per ticket and there was numerous court cases of people who got tickets they should not have. They were basically proven to be a source of revenue for the city.

That is off topic, but the question remains. If it is legal in one state, but illegal in another, what is the actual efficacy of the law other than to produce income or to be able to regulate an industry? Especially when this industry does not have enough enforcers to make sure people are jumping through the hoops?

FTR, I would not operate illegally because of liability, since you cannot be insured, but it would have nothing to do with safety or quality of care i can provide. It is basically because a state said I was not capable of operating without their consent and the insurance companies followed suit.

Whenever you own a business, the red tape can get heavy, so you have to be vigilant about what you are allowed or not allowed to do in your state. But again, states vary on what they expect, so for me, I would never move to one that is not childcare business friendly.

[TomCopeland]

Illegal

I understand the illegal versus legal argument, but in this case, I do not think legal or illegal means ANYTHING when it comes to the safety and care of a child. Every state has different standards, so what is illegal in one, is completely legal in another. In this case, legal/illegal lose all meaning, which is why this is a never ending debate. If CA says that for the safety of the children, you must be licensed to watch ANY number of kids, then that should hold true in every other state. Since ND (my state) says that I can watch 5 kids without being licensed, it really has nothing to do with safety or quality care. It has to do with MONEY. If you want to make extra money watching kids in CA, you will have to pay money first (unless they are related to you, in which case, you can watch as many as you want...hmmm). In ND, you can make a living without having the state involved at all.

This happens in all areas besides childcare. In TX, they started doing phot tickets at stop lights. They said it was reduce people running lights and for the safety of the roadways. It was only in certain cities, so as I was driving from Frisco into Richardson, I would go through a town that had them, but also through 3 that did not. Research showed there was no actual reduction in accidents because of them, but the cities who had them, got $75 per ticket and there was numerous court cases of people who got tickets they should not have. They were basically proven to be a source of revenue for the city.

That is off topic, but the question remains. If it is legal in one state, but illegal in another, what is the actual efficacy of the law other than to produce income or to be able to regulate an industry? Especially when this industry does not have enough enforcers to make sure people are jumping through the hoops?

FTR, I would not operate illegally because of liability, since you cannot be insured, but it would have nothing to do with safety or quality of care i can provide. It is basically because a state said I was not capable of operating without their consent and the insurance companies followed suit.

Whenever you own a business, the red tape can get heavy, so you have to be vigilant about what you are allowed or not allowed to do in your state. But again, states vary on what they expect, so for me, I would never move to one that is not childcare business friendly.

It's true that there are no national standards about licensing. Therefore, what is legal in one state is illegal in another. That's true for many laws. However, to say that there is no difference in child safety is stretching it, I believe.

I don't believe there is any data to support your conclusion. I'd love to see a report that compared the strictness of licensing standards to the health and safety of young children in care.

As a parent I'd want my child with a provider who has training in first aid, had an emergency plan, had smoke detectors and was regularly inspected.

[mommyneedsadayoff]

It's true that there are no national standards about licensing. Therefore, what is legal in one state is illegal in another. That's true for many laws. However, to say that there is no difference in child safety is stretching it, I believe.

I don't believe there is any data to support your conclusion. I'd love to see a report that compared the strictness of licensing standards to the health and safety of young children in care.

As a parent I'd want my child with a provider who has training in first aid, had an emergency plan, had smoke detectors and was regularly inspected.

But there is none to support yours as well. This happens because there is no sort of registry or whatnot to report to. I would actually love to see a report as well. At least then, I could see some effect of the licensing regualtions that some states adapt, versus those states who adapt little to none.

I have CPR/basic first aid and nursing training (CNA) and my home as smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, as well as viable emergency escapes if needed. Again, that is just what I have, no license or anything, but viable means to care for hte kids I say I will care for.

I would guess it is hard to find data, since there is nothing fluent between the states, so what is legal in one is illegal in another. Not sure how you ca measure success or failure in that case.

It kind of reminds me of the "illusion of safety". When someone tried to bring a bomb on a plane in their shoes, we started taking our shoes off at airports. When someone tried using fluids, we started only being allowed a few ounces on carry on. When someone's kid got hurt by falling off the monkey bars, we stopped letting monkey bars be a part of the play system. Everything is a reaction. And generally, the people actually paying attention (who never did anything wrong) are the ones who will stick to the new rules.

I am NOT saying that we should not have licensing or standards that should be met, but if the purpose of those standards is for the safety or well being of the children, they should be consistent from state to state. When you move, it should not be a question of what you have to do...it should be right in your face. There is too much inconsistency and grey and I don't think that helps our industry...I think it makes it confusing and I think it leads to more people operating outside the rules. Just my two cents!

[Blackcat31]

But there is none to support yours as well. This happens because there is no sort of registry or whatnot to report to. I would actually love to see a report as well. At least then, I could see some effect of the licensing regualtions that some states adapt, versus those states who adapt little to none.

I have CPR/basic first aid and nursing training (CNA) and my home as smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, as well as viable emergency escapes if needed. Again, that is just what I have, no license or anything, but viable means to care for hte kids I say I will care for.

I would guess it is hard to find data, since there is nothing fluent between the states, so what is legal in one is illegal in another. Not sure how you ca measure success or failure in that case.

It kind of reminds me of the "illusion of safety". When someone tried to bring a bomb on a plane in their shoes, we started taking our shoes off at airports. When someone tried using fluids, we started only being allowed a few ounces on carry on. When someone's kid got hurt by falling off the monkey bars, we stopped letting monkey bars be a part of the play system. Everything is a reaction. And generally, the people actually paying attention (who never did anything wrong) are the ones who will stick to the new rules.

I am NOT saying that we should not have licensing or standards that should be met, but if the purpose of those standards is for the safety or well being of the children, they should be consistent from state to state. When you move, it should not be a question of what you have to do...it should be right in your face. There is too much inconsistency and grey and I don't think that helps our industry...I think it makes it confusing and I think it leads to more people operating outside the rules. Just my two cents!

Yes there are....rules and regulations.

Rules and regulations are "agreed upon necessities" to ensure the cause/point which in this case is overall child safety.

States gather information, do research and together decide what rules and regulations are needed for the children in licensed care environments to be provided a safe environment.

Illegal providers don't follow that thought process so when someone like OP says "Illegal but Excellent" I wonder by WHO'S standards??

At least the rules and regulations in each state have an intended purpose and provide a basic guideline verses just a free for all because one size doesn't fit all.

[Blackcat31]

I am NOT saying that we should not have licensing or standards that should be met, but if the purpose of those standards is for the safety or well being of the children, they should be consistent from state to state. When you move, it should not be a question of what you have to do...it should be right in your face. There is too much inconsistency and grey and I don't think that helps our industry...I think it makes it confusing and I think it leads to more people operating outside the rules. Just my two cents!

I think the rules and regulations from state to state ARE basic and fairly similar/consistent hands down.....it's the licensors themselves that I think are the issue. They RARELY if ever interpret the rules in the same way.

Think food program. It's a federal program with the same rules across the country but every single agency interprets the rules differently.

My state has been advocating for training (in regards to rule/regulation interpretation) for ALL licensors to prevent this type of thing from continuing to happen. I think once that training happens, alot of the "haze" or "gray" area will be very clear. For everyone.

[mommyneedsadayoff]

I think the rules and regulations from state to state ARE basic and fairly similar/consistent hands down.....it's the licensors themselves that I think are the issue. They RARELY if ever interpret the rules in the same way.

Think food program. It's a federal program with the same rules across the country but every single agency interprets the rules differently.

My state has been advocating for training (in regards to rule/regulation interpretation) for ALL licensors to prevent this type of thing from continuing to happen. I think once that training happens, alot of the "haze" or "gray" area will be very clear. For everyone.

Yes thats a good point. The interpretation seems to be varied and confuses the dc providers. I have read many times of two providers in the same area who have been told very different things.

As far as being able to see actual research, I guess i meant it would be too hard to measure. If my state allows you to operate with 5 kids and no one even knows about it, how can they measure if im as safe or safer than the licensed facility down the street, kwim? I just dont get how they can prove that licensed is safer or better care, since the rules of ratios and standards are so varied. Anyhoo, just thinking out loud, but i do agree that if you live in a state where a license is required, you should get the license if for no other reason than to protect your livlihood and not put yourself at risk.