I speak today as the owner of Search of Nanny, Inc. a licensed Nanny Placement Agency in Danvers since 1988. I also speak as a member of the International Nanny Association and the Alliance of Professional Nanny Agencies. Most important, I speak to you as a parent who has employed nannies for my children’s care for 13 years in a variety of configurations, both full and part-time, live-in and out.

I am in support of House Bill 3082 with changes that I will discuss. I applaud the Human Services Committees recognition of the differences between au pair agencies and nanny agencies and au pairs and professional nannies by introducing two different bills.

Nonetheless, it is important to state that this legislation is reactionary caused by the tragic death of an infant under the care of an au pair. You should be addressing the cause of the problem, the lack of regulation of the au pair programs, not the entire in-home childcare industry.

The Nanny Placement agencies of the Commonwealth have fully cooperated with the Committee on Human Services regarding this legislation when first drafted last Spring. It would be very wrong if Bill 3082 was enacted, and Bill 3080 (the Act to legislate the au pair industry) is not.

Specific issues, which concern others and myself in the Nanny Placement Industry in Bill 3082, include the following:

• The Bill does not distinguish between an occasional in-home caregiver (one or two evening a week caregiver) and one that is more permanent. Only caregivers that work more than 25 hours a week on a permanent basis and for more than 6 months, should be included in the legislation.

• The Bill states that DMV records should be required of all caregivers. Instead it should be revised to state that DMV records should be required only for permanent caregivers (that make a six month commitment or more), that work more than 25 hours per week AND who have a job requirement to drive children.

• The Bill states that an agency is "required" to maintain signed copies of contracts between caregiver and parent. As an agency, we ENCOURAGE written agreements between caregiver and parent, but we can not COERCE or require anyone to sign a contract that they do not want to. By providing a template agreement, and offering no guarantee without one signed by both parent and caregiver, In Search of Nanny strongly encourages, but cannot require anyone enter into an agreement that they do not wish to.

As I previously stated, this is a reactionary bill. It is my opinion that it is more appropriate to look at the REAL issue, the safety and protection of all children, not just the children of the wealthy.

California has such a program called TrustLine which was started in 1994. The impetus for its beginning was the parent of a child who was killed by a caregiver who had a criminal record. State funding has been earmarked for a parent education campaign for public service announcements, ads in very public places, TV and radio ads etc. to advise parents of its existence. It is a voluntary registry of any caregiver that chooses to do in home care in the state. The state conducts a criminal check of that person which is kept on file, and is kept current with state offender information. Parents that want to employ a caregiver that they have identified through a friend, a relative, a newspaper ad, an agency or any means can ask for the person’s TrustLine registration. They can then make the choice to employ or not employ the caregiver.

As a result, California provides critical information for all parents’ at all economic levels; not just the people earning over $150K a year who employ nannies. Since 1994, 33,000 caregivers have been screened with fewer than 1,600 of that number placed by agencies. The drawback of TrustLine - it takes 5-7 weeks for a caregiver to get screened (parents can’t wait that long) and the information in the criminal database is for California offenses only, not other jurisdictions. But, it is a good first step.

In Massachusetts a CORI check, (which does not go far enough in my opinion) takes 4-5 weeks. Because of the delay and the need for more comprehensive screening, many Nanny Placement Agencies utilize the services of private security companies to do the background checks on the applicants they represent. The cost is more than double what a CORI check costs but the response turnaround is 24 to 48 hours. We need to be responsive to our clients – parents AND nannies. If it takes too long for us to get screening, the nanny won’t wait for a job and will get one on her own. We would be out of business, because parents can’t wait another 2 months for a person to be screened especially after they have searched for 4 weeks to find the right person. As a result, fewer caregivers will be screened, not more.

If a "Trust Line" is established in Massachusetts, the responsibility will be placed on individual caregivers to be registered. Instead of a state agency, I would strongly recommend that private companies that specialize in employee background checks should be contracted by the Commonwealth to provide the screening. The company chosen should be required to respond to an annual Commonwealth RFP and be awarded the contract for not more than a one-year basis.

In addition, if you want to make children safe in their own homes and in their own communities, enact legislation to make the sex offender registry information available to agencies… currently we cannot have access to it.

Betty Davis,
President