PR is golden if you want to own a busy nanny agency. PP is absolutely right.

There are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

I don't care about numbers, since they can be fudged. I care about attitude. Agencies with poor attitudes don't get to work with me. Agencies with good attitudes, I am happy to work with.

I am sure a lot of potential employers feel the same way, and that's why many agencies fail each year. To survive today any agency has to bring something truly special to the table.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My agency (not in DC) shares data on how long their nanny placements last for (97% fulfill or extend the length of their contract). Is that what you're talking about? If so, some places DO collect that information and you're right, parents should be asking for it before they commit to paying any fees.

Anyone know of a Washington area agency that does this?

We are talking here about the completion of a one year agreement, not "years and years." Many agreements are only for the summer, or even less.
The question is:
HOW often is an agency successful in the completion of the intended duration of commitment?

If you agreed to a three month summer commitment, and it fell apart after only 8 weeks, we have a clear failure (unless of course someone died, or some such verifiable tragedy happened). One would think this data would be required of agencies.

How else can you compare their success/failure rates?? Hence, their reputation as ripoffs.

Longevity is a very small factor in a successful nanny/family relationship. Why? Because not every family wants a nanny who will stay for years on end, and not every nanny wants a job that lasts for years either.

Perhaps a better measure of an agency is how well they listen to you when you are interviewing them (and this goes for nannies and families), and how well they translate what you tell them you are seeking into potential candidates or potential positions.

An agency could boast of it's 97% match success rate, but if they don't do a decent job of matching families to nannies and vice versa, that statistic means nothing other than that they are able to convince clients and nannies to "stick it out" for a full year.

OTOH, if parents have a specific (and reasonable) list of things they visualize in their perfect nanny, and the agency manages to meet most of their requirements with the candidates they send the family, why make the time the nanny stays with the family the only success statistic?

As a nanny, I'll use an agency if they listen to me and present opportunities to me that match my wants and needs. The fact that I like to (and always plan to) stay with a family for many years is kind of irrelevant - if a family is an awesome match in every way except timeline, I am still open to meeting them.

And agencies that insist on my filling out a 16 page application (that they apparently then use to train their new puppy), and who interview me without listening then often call me with LI jobs when I only LO, or PT jobs when I only want FT, or jobs with teens when I prefer to start with infants? I generally tell them to stop bothering me, even if they have a "nearly perfect" success rate.

Anonymous wrote:My agency (not in DC) shares data on how long their nanny placements last for (97% fulfill or extend the length of their contract). Is that what you're talking about? If so, some places DO collect that information and you're right, parents should be asking for it before they commit to paying any fees.

Anyone know of a Washington area agency that does this?

Your question is meaningless to the success of a nanny agency. The expected timeline is a small part of what makes a successful nanny/family match. Why? Because there are many, many reasons a nanny and family don't work out, and these reasons can't be predicted, and, thus, are difficult to measure. Once a nanny is placed/employed, the agency's work is done.

Now, if an agency requested exit interviews from nannies and families at the end of employment, they could gather data on all the reasons it does or doesn't work out, and matching expected timelines could be theorized based on this data, but that data would have to be voluntary and will no doubt lack in validity and reliability.

If there is such a thing as a "revolving door" (and I don't think many people think there is), the way to prevent it is with the best screening of candidates, measurable ways to determine that a nanny is skilled (licensure) and good solid contracts. Other than that, things will happen, people will change, and needs will change and nannies will be replaced or seek new employment.

I may want to stay in my job for five years, but that doesn't prevent my company from laying me off. They may want me to stay five years, but that doesn't stop me from looking for a new job.

My agency (not in DC) shares data on how long their nanny placements last for (97% fulfill or extend the length of their contract). Is that what you're talking about? If so, some places DO collect that information and you're right, parents should be asking for it before they commit to paying any fees.

Nannies think going through an agency means getting a job $$ above the market with little work. Parents think going through an agency will produce Mary Poppins with them expending little effort. These expectations are not realistic.

Agencies basically provide screening services. Their main value is in vetting candidates against a minimum bar. This has some value as it saves you time from weeding through the 100+ responses that you would not have considered. You get to avoid all the candidates who don't have recent references or consistent work histories with references, illegal to work, will not get vaccines when watching infants, and have no real experience. It has some value to nannies as you are basically getting a tacit recommendation from the agency to the parent which distinguishes you from being lost in the 100+ responses. Beyond this, the agencies don't provide much value.

The agency model angers many nannies who think they are the bees knees but don't meet this bar. Agencies can't control the market so a nanny isn't going to magically find a $20 hr job if the market only supports $15. Parents don't realize that meeting a minimum bar doesn't mean that the nanny is a good fit your position.

Both parents and nannies want a meaningful way to feel competent before selecting a nanny agency and investing the required time and significant fees.

As a spinoff from the au pair thread....

Nanny agencies always ask every parent and every nanny how long they want their next nanny/job for. The agencies usually suggest a maximum of one year and then re-evaluate. Of course it may be much less. The comparison of this expected timeline is an essential component of the matching process.

What is the agency rate of success in achieving the parent's and nanny's stated goal?

Agencies that have highest rates of failure are obviously the least successful. But a smooth talking agency owner or worker can easily sell you anything with her sharp PR skills. So far, agencies have not been forthcoming with any statistics whatsoever. They will claim that they have no idea. Why not? How else can they evaluate themselves if they refuse to track the results of their matching strategies.

Why don't parents demand some hard data? Certainly they should have fair access to vital details to minimize the constant waste of many thousands of dollars over and over again, not to mention the damage done to children by having frequently changing nannies.

The revolving nanny door needs to stop.

Your child deserves better.