The licensing
unit has evolved to need additional management attention.

Staffing in the licensing unit has more than doubled in the past two years, creating a function that demands additional attention from DFS management.  Currently, the unit has a high turnover rate, has difficulty recruiting qualified licensers, and its childcare licensers have uneven and sometimes high workloads. 

These problems call for a variety of administrative and legislative solutions.  In order to facilitate a more stable and productive licensing staff, DFS and the Legislature need to immediately address the issues discussed in this chapter, and bring renewed focus to the primary mission of regulating.  Staffing is the first and most critical issue for DFS to address.

Finding 1:

Licenser Turnover Brings With It
High Financial and Other Costs

Since 1999, the licensing unit has been experiencing high turnover and difficulty filling vacant positions.  As a result, DFS incurs both financial and non-financial costs that affect the unit’s ability to perform its regulatory mission.  We found many of the unit’s problems with attracting and retaining staff are related to the AWEC status of the position.  Where licensers once held permanent, benefited positions, most now serve as “at-will employee contractors” (AWECs).

Unit has Difficulty Maintaining a
Stable and Well Qualified Staff

Since 1999,
the unit has experienced
high turnover.

The average tenure of current licensers is only 19 months.

Turnover among licensers has been high since the change of the majority of licensers to AWEC status.  In 1999, the licensing unit lost close to 40 percent of its staff and in 2000, one-third.  Between January and May 2001, the unit lost 20 percent of its staff, suggesting that attrition of licensers is continuing at a similarly high rate.  By contrast, turnover in state government as a whole averaged 13.7 percent in 1999.

The negative effects of high turnover are compounded by the relatively short tenures, and therefore inexperience, of licensers currently employed by DFS.  As of April 2001, the average tenure among licensers was only 19 months; in addition, half the licensers had been with the unit for less than one year.  Very few experienced licensers remain in the unit:  only three have more than 24 months’ experience. 

Vacant Positions Are
Not Immediately Filled

Licenser positions remain vacant for an average of three months.

DFS has not been able to fill vacant licenser positions in a timely manner.  An LSO analysis of DFS-provided data showed that during 2000, licenser positions remained vacant an average of 95 days, or over three months.  Licensers who remained with the unit needed to absorb the workload from each vacancy.  Positions that remain vacant for an extended period of time intensify the burden on remaining licensers by increasing the length of time during which they carry a larger workload. 

Qualified Staff Are
Difficult to Attract

Many applicants
lack the desired qualifications and experience.

Both the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and National Association Of Regulatory Agencies (NARA) agree that licensing staff should be qualified and well trained, and that this is essential for the effective implementation and enforcement of licensing requirements.  NAEYC adds that licensers should “have preparation and demonstrated competence in early childhood education and child development, program administration, and regulatory enforcement, including the use of sanctions.” 

However, the licensing unit has found it difficult to recruit well-qualified staff to fill vacant licenser positions.  The program manager and regional supervisors report they have trouble attracting applicants with desired qualifications and experience.  While the program manager expressed a preference for hiring licensers with four-year degrees, she added this standard must be compromised to fill positions.

Unit Incurs Costs That
Compromise Mission

DFS devotes many resources to training and mentoring new licensing staff.

Due to difficulty in recruiting and retaining well-qualified licensers, the licensing unit incurs financial as well as non-financial costs, which in turn, compromise the unit’s primary mission.  DFS invests a significant amount of time and money into training and mentoring each new hire.  When licensers leave, not only is that investment lost, but as well, the regulatory function of licensing suffers in other less quantifiable ways.

Each Departure Represents
Financial Loss to Agency

In 2000, each licenser departure cost DFS at least $9,000.

We estimate that each time a licenser left the unit in 2000, the departure cost DFS at least $9,000 (see Appendix D for methodology).  This amount includes the funds expended when the licenser separated from the agency, the cost of the vacancy, the cost to replace the licenser, and the cost of initial training for a new licenser.  Initial training, which lasts three weeks, accounts for the largest portion of the total cost per turnover.  In addition, a licenser typically does not take over a full caseload for at least three months, and a newly hired licenser is mentored for a full year by an experienced licenser.  We did not assign a portion of the cost of ongoing training provided for licensers, which was $48,000 in 2000, but some percentage of that training could also be included in the cost per turnover.

Other Consequences
Are Not Quantifiable

Many licensers leave their positions before reaching proficiency.

Turnover affects
the timeliness of applications and renewals as well as working conditions.

Additional consequences of turnover cannot be quantified, but they impact the licensing unit’s ability to fulfill its primary mission.  DFS officials and licensers report that it takes from one to two years to develop a solid understanding of the licensing position.  However, the average tenure of licensers who have left since 1999 is only 11 months and thus, many licensers are not staying with the job long enough to reach proficiency.  Other non-financial consequences of turnover include:  inconsistencies within the unit, negative provider attitudes towards licensing unit, and lost opportunities to facilitate relationships with providers.

The timeliness of renewals and initial applications is often affected by turnover.  While data regarding the timeliness of licenser duties is incomplete, the program manager, supervisors, licensers and outside observers all report problems with timeliness when turnover occurs.  Likewise, providers have expressed frustration that licensers are not consistently punctual with their renewal visits. 

Turnover alsohas an immediate and pervasive effect on working conditions for those who remain.  Licensers report that turnover in any part of the state can increase their caseload or workload, as will be discussed in Finding 2.  When experienced licensers train or mentor new licensers, the additional duties create extra workload that can detract from their primary responsibilities.  DFS officials and licensers report an increased stress level and low morale within the unit when licenser turnover occurs. 

Turnover Impacts Providers

Providers
are dissatisfied
with constantly changing staff.

Turnover may compromise the health and safety
of children in

licensed care.

In addition to the costs incurred by DFS, turnover negatively impacts providers and the children for whom they care.  We believe provider dissatisfaction also negatively impacts their perception of DFS and the licensing function.  Responses to our survey of providers show they are dissatisfied with a constantly changing licensing staff.  Analysis of the provider survey, broken down by region, shows that providers in the regions with the highest licenser turnover since 1999 appear to have the most negative impression of their licensers.  We also found that providers in the regions with the lowest amount of turnover have the most positive impression of their licenser. 

When several different licensers inspect a provider over a period of time, as can happen when turnover is high and the remaining licensers fill in, licensers say providers can “get away with more.”  If providers are not meeting minimum standards, the health and safety of children in their care is compromised. 

AWEC Position Primary
Reason for Turnover

Since many of the licenser positions became AWEC, the unit has lost 13 licensers.

A major contributor to the licensing unit’s recruitment and retention difficulty is classification of licenser positions as AWECs, without benefits.  Currently, 13 of the 15 licensers are AWECs and do not receive paid vacation, health insurance, sick leave, or retirement, while two are permanent, benefited state employees.

As Figure 6 shows, turnover among licensers was significantly lower when the positions were permanent and included benefits.  In the four years before April 1999, the licensing unit had turnover in four positions.  In the two years since AWEC positions have been in place, the licensing unit has lost 13 staff.  DFS reported that a majority of the licensers who resigned after the 1999 change in classification said they did so because of their status as an AWEC.

Figure 6:  Turnover of DFS Childcare Licensers

Source:  LSO analysis of DFS-provided data

Minimum Qualifications
Not Established for AWECs

Less experienced licensing staff places additional training burden on DFS.

The agency reports that since most licenser positions became AWECs, the unit has had more difficulty attracting well-qualified applicants.  When the positions were permanent, four-year degrees or equivalent experience were required.  When they became AWEC positions, there were no longer any official requirements for the position of licenser.  As of April 2001, only 64 percent of licensers held a bachelor’s degree.  While the range of professional backgrounds of licensers may be appropriate, we note that it places an additional burden on DFS to supplement licensers’ knowledge through training.

Licensers Leave for
Permanent Positions

Licensers cite lack
of benefits as a primary concern
with AWEC status.

Different compensation arrangements cause licenser frustration.

Individual licensers report, and information provided by DFS shows, that most licensers who vacated their positions after April 1999 left for benefited positions.  Licensers agree that the lack of benefits is a major drawback to the job.  We interviewed current licensers and all reported some dissatisfaction with being an AWEC, as well as dissatisfaction specifically with not having benefits.

While lack of benefits seems to cause the most dissatisfaction with AWEC positions, we learned that licensers have other objections as well.  Some have found that being an AWEC does not create a sense of attachment to the job, allowing for a sentiment wherein a licenser may leave without giving notice.  Also, since two of the licensers in the unit have permanent benefited positions, while the others receive no benefits, frustration among AWECs has flourished.  Licensers said they did not understand why those with permanent positions were being compensated differently when all licensers have the same job responsibilities. 

Recommendation:  The Legislature should consider making licensers permanent benefited positions.

Changing licensers’ employment status could bring many improvements.

With minimal cost to the state, positions could be made permanent.

The expansion of the licensing unit has been a positive step for the regulation of childcare facilities in Wyoming.  However, the type of positions created has contributed to a constantly changing workforce of licensers.  This turnover presents costs to the state and negatively impacts the regulatory function of licensing.  To reduce the attrition rate of licensers and thereby save money, and to improve the program’s regulatory functioning, the Legislature should consider making licensers permanent benefited positions. 

Currently, the state is losing close to $9,000 dollars each time a licenser leaves.  We calculated the cost of changing a full-time AWEC position to a full-time benefited position, and found the state would expend $7,400 to provide full benefits to a licenser currently paid at the rate of $11 per hour.  The lack of benefits and the temporary nature of the positions appear to be major reasons for the high attrition rate since 1999.  We believe an investment in the form of creating permanent, benefited positions for licensers can reduce the turnover rate within the unit as well as generate savings to the state. 

Finding 2:

Inequitable Workload Distribution
Impacts Primary Mission of Unit

Uneven and high caseloads make it difficult for licensers to fulfill their primary regulatory duties.

DFS has not distributed the caseloads and workloads of licensers in an equitable manner, and some licensers exceed the caseload level recommended by industry standards.  Licensers with high workloads have difficulty fulfilling their primary regulatory mission; high workloads also negatively impact licensers’ relationships with providers.  We found that this inequitable distribution has occurred, in part, because DFS has not developed reasonable workload standards. 

Distribution of Workload
is Inequitable

Caseloads and workloads are inequitably distributed among DFS licensers.  We found that many licensers had higher than industry recommended caseloads, and some of them are covering several thousand square miles of territory. 

Caseload Does Not

Equal Workload

A licenser’s caseload plus many additional duties create total workload.

Licensers are assigned a primary caseload, or a number of providers to license, plus many additional duties.  The combination of caseload plus additional duties creates a licenser’s total workload; workload includes such activities as the following:

·         Inspections and monitoring visits

·         New applications and denials

·         Closures, revocations, and suspensions

·         Complaint investigations

·         Staff meetings, unit training, and assignments

·         Travel

·         Fielding provider questions and training providers

·         Communicating with other entities

·         Training and mentoring new staff

Distribution of Caseload is
Inconsistent With National Standards

Caseloads are not distributed evenly across state.

Current caseload per position is higher than recommended NAEYC standards.

LSO analysis of data provided by DFS shows an unequal caseload distribution among licensers around the state.  In Laramie County, with 1,075 square miles, the average caseload per position in April 2001 was 52 cases; one half-time licenser was assigned only 12 cases.  However, in the same month, the licenser in Park County, assigned to three counties covering 12,361 square miles, had a caseload of 95.  The time needed to travel within that territory added to the licenser’s workload. 

Distribution of caseloads is inconsistent with NAEYC standards, which recommend a caseload of 75 facilities per licenser position, with preference for 50.  We calculate that if the licensing unit had been fully staffed with experienced licensers in April 2001, the average caseload would have been 71 cases per position.  However, when vacancies and the limitations of new hires were accounted for, we found the average caseload per position was actually 85.

While the NAEYC standard is generally accepted, a General Accounting Office (GAO) report adds that a single such standard does not account for all variables, such as travel time to and from providers and other responsibilities licensers may have.  In Wyoming, licensers with the smallest caseloads are located in areas requiring the least travel time.  For example, licensers in Laramie County reported traveling less than ten hours per month, while licensers based in Sheridan County, who cover five counties, reported traveling as much as 31 hours per month.

Despite the Increase in Staff,
Workloads Remain High

Turnover plus added  responsibilities

make reasonable  workloads difficult
to maintain.

While the number of licensers in the unit has grown over the past two years, caseloads and workloads remain high.  This has occurred because the licensing unit has taken on additional responsibilities since its 1999 expansion, and because constant staff turnover makes it difficult for DFS to maintain reasonable workloads. 

Unit’s Primary Mission
is Compromised

Monitoring visits, essential to ensuring compliance, are not routinely conducted.

Increased workloads can strain licensers’ relationship with providers.

As a result of uneven and sometimes high licenser workloads, children in out-of-home care may not be uniformly protected across the state.  Experts maintain that monitoring visits are essential to ensure that rules are being complied with and that children are uniformly protected.  According to the manager of the licensing unit, monitoring visits should be conducted between renewal visits to ensure that providers continue to meet minimum standards throughout the year.  However, licensers report that when workloads are high, the first responsibility to “go on the back burner” is monitoring visits. 

High workloads place a strain on provider relations and reduce providers’ satisfaction with the licensing function.  Results of our survey show that providers in regions with the highest average caseloads per licenser were not as likely as providers in regions with lower caseloads to agree that their licensers were consistent, knowledgeable, or timely.  Licensers report that when they have a high workload, they are less likely to visit their providers in order to build relationships with them. 

DFS Has Not Developed
Standards for Workload

The unit currently keeps licensers
at a maximum
of 100 cases.

We believe travel time is not factored into caseload distribution.

While management has set a standard for caseload per licenser, the standard is well above NAEYC’s recommendation.  Although the unit reports it tries to keep licensers to a maximum of 100 cases, this is higher than NAEYC’s recommendation of 75, and some licensers struggle with close to 100 cases. 

DFS does not have a way of ensuring that licensers are kept within the unit’s own standard for appropriate caseloads.  As will be discussed in Chapter 3, management information is essential to make strategic and informed decisions regarding staff workloads.  DFS may not have accounted for different factors when distributing workload because it lacks the information necessary to perform a workload analysis.

More importantly, DFS has not taken other responsibilities into account when dividing cases among licensers.  For example, since licensers with some of the highest caseloads have the largest territories to cover, we believe DFS has not taken travel time into account when distributing caseload and workload.  In a larger town, visiting a facility may entail a five or ten minute drive, while in a rural area a similar visit may involve a two hour or longer drive each way. 

Ancillary Activities
Increase Workload

Secondary assignments
can interfere with licensers’
primary duties.

Additionally, ancillary activities other than licensing have a significant impact on licensers’ workloads.  One professional organization states that technical support is not part of the official job description of childcare inspectors, and if carried too far, could detract from their fundamental regulatory mission. 

We learned that secondary assignments from DFS often interfere with licensers’ primary regulatory duties.  For example, DFS recently completed a resource manual for providers.  While a manual may be helpful to providers, writing one is not part of the unit’s primary mission of licensing.  Licensers report that drafting the manual consumed much of their time for several months.  Often, they found it necessary to delay renewal visits, omit monitoring visits, and defer other work in order to meet the project deadline. 

Turnover Impacts Workload

Licensers often
must  travel to cover vacancies in the unit.

Turnover in one position can increase the workload of licensers across the state, and high turnover has had a major impact on the caseload and workload distribution among licensers.  Some travel to other parts of the state to take over cases, while others spend one or two weeks training a new staff member, and yet others mentor new staff for as long as a year. 

Although the unit created a rover position in the western half of the state to help to reduce licensers’ caseloads and workloads, the rover is often unavailable for that purpose.  The rover is called upon to fill vacancies around the state when turnover occurs.  When the rover is acting in this capacity, she is unable to help with the work of licensers in the western half of the state. 

Recommendation:  The licensing unit needs to develop appropriate standards for caseload and workload.

Fulfilling the unit’s primary regulatory duty should become a priority.

DFS management should develop appropriate standards for caseload and workload that take into account travel time and other responsibilities.  While DFS studies and adjusts workloads and caseloads, fulfilling primary regulatory duties should become the priority for licensers.  Ancillary activities can be resumed after DFS is able to ensure that primary regulatory duties are being fulfilled and licensers have realistic and appropriate caseloads and workloads that are more consistent with national standards.