+1. Ridiculously old and flawed “study”. Why would anyone quote it? Just to trash parents who can hire nannies? |
And that is a valid reason to question the study. But, the fact that the data is old doesn’t inherently mean it is no longer accurate. It certainly doesn’t mean that citing to it is “spreading false information.” I’m not necessarily here to defend the study, which may or may not be well done and/or still relevant. I was merely pointing out that your reaction to the study was entirely over the top. |
Where's this unicorn center? |
Aside from the age of the study, how is it flawed? |
I'm the PP who posted it. As is typical on DCUM, it's flawed because she doesn't like the conclusions. Lol. |
The study doesn’t distinguish the types of home child care. It’s lumping nannies, grandparents, great-grandparents, tee siblings, other relatives, unlicensed childcare of more than five babies (common in low income areas) and babysitters in one group. Makes it useless in discussing nanny vs daycare or the safety of daycare in comparison. |
Stop embarrassing yourself, PP. You’ve already admitted this study is dated and flawed in not distinguishing “home care givers” and, obviously, it’s using data from 1993! |
I am not the one who is embarrassing herself. But I'm not surprised that nannies and people who hire them would react so aggressively to a someone simply quoting a study that provides information relevant to the OP's question. Yes, it's old, but the factors and issues it describes are still very relevant. If it were a study comparing safety of SUVs vs sedans, perhaps you'd have a point. As to the question of "real" nannies, that's hilarious given that nannies aren't required to have a license or other credential, so it would be impossible for a researcher to identify which ones are "real" and which ones are just "babysitters". If you have other, newer, better studies that speak to this issue, you are welcome to post them. |
The point people are trying to impress upon you is that this study is irrelevant. It’s not about “real nannies” at all. The category was all at-home childcare. Do you think grandmothers and great-grandmothers are nannies? Or a great aunt of teenage sibling? You just seem to want to bash nannies and it is embarrassing for you. We all see your jealousy, PP. |
No but think what you like. You should read the study. It is interesting. |
|
By the way, they excluded cases where the child was in the care of a relative (see page 733). It's not a perfect study (no study on this topic could be), but it really does provide some interesting information, particularly on the striking safety of centers but also child care in general. If anything, this study is anti-SAHP, since most fatalities due to neglect or abuse occur while the child is in the care of parents. But for the OP, you might find the last paragraph on page 737 interesting - while infants are the most vulnerable to death from abuse and neglect versus older children, infant deaths in centers are extremely, extremely rare (they only found one case of a death in a center).
https://www.keanelaw.com/library/childCarefatalities2003.pdf |
Up your $ offer for a PT nanny. Or offer to help the nanny find another family who needs her when you don’t. When I worked for several regular families each week, I was very happy with my earnings. Best of all, I knew the children were getting more time with their families. |
I graduated in 03... You don’t think things have changed a bit since then?! |
Center is defined. In the home of the provider is defined. But there’s no distinction for caregivers in the child’s home. |
Did they look at all other signs or abuse/neglect or only severe cases, like fatalities? |