One of the most important tasks in hiring the right nanny is to thoroughly check all references of an applicant. Many webpages provide guidance on how best to methodically check references. Leave no stone unturned. Some helpful webpages and key points:
How and Why
A candidate reluctant to provide references is a red flag. A nanny may reasonably request that you not contact their current employer if they have not yet provided notice of their intent to leave the job. The candidate, however, should still have the requisite child care and previous employment references available. You need to stand firm and simply tell the candidate that you cannot extend a job offer without checking references. Invite the nanny to think about how to solve this and get back to you with a solution. If the nanny follows up with a reasonable solution, this is a positive. If they do not, you have most likely saved yourself from a hiring mistake.
Did the Nanny really work for the reference?
Some nannies in Alexandria have sought and obtained references from individuals for whom they never worked. Because of this behavior, it is essential to flush out if the reference is one of these pseudo-references. "First, make sure this person did actually employ your candidate as a Nanny. Find out for how long and for how many children and what are there ages. Ask why she left their employ." If an employer is given a dishonest reference, it combines two awful characteristics in the applicant: reference problems plus dishonesty. Ask direct and hard questions about work hours, start dates, pay, daily routines. If the reference you have been given is a phony reference from someone helping the nanny, it is only a matter of time before the problems will manifest in your house. And if you are asked to give a phony reference, do your neighbors a favor and refuse to lie.
A good list of general questions are here.
More general questions are here
Finally, it is essential to ask the applicant in the telephone interview the reason for leaving the last job. Write the answer down. Ask it again in the in-person interview and beware of any discrepancies between the two answers. That is a huge red flag. Next, thoroughly explore the reasons with the last employer when you do a thorough reference check. Any discrepancies are red flags which must be thoroughly explored. Answers which cannot be reconciled should be disqualifying.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Extras
As for extra benefits provided, 9.5 percent of respondents indicated providing their nanny use of a credit or gas card. 12 percent of respondents indicated providing healthcare for their nannies. 24 percent indicated providing access to a car. Other benefits listed include: cell phone, annual bonus, and spending money for daily activities.
Full time vs part time
73 percent of respondents indicated that their nanny worked full time (35 hours or week or more). The average hourly rate for full time nannies was $16.13 while the average hourly rate for part time was $19. The average weekly salary for part time nannies was $386 and for full time nannies it was $695.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Hourly Mode = 15
The mode on the nanny salary survey = $ 15 per hour. (n = 7)
Other runner's up for the mode were:
$13 per hour (n = 6)
$17 per hour (n = 4)
$18 per hour (n = 4)
We calculated the rate for the mode analysis by using normal statistical methods. That is a hourly rate of $14.50 was rounded up to 15, and an hourly rate of $15.30 was considered 15. The mode is the most common salary, the salary that appears the most is the mode.
Other runner's up for the mode were:
$13 per hour (n = 6)
$17 per hour (n = 4)
$18 per hour (n = 4)
We calculated the rate for the mode analysis by using normal statistical methods. That is a hourly rate of $14.50 was rounded up to 15, and an hourly rate of $15.30 was considered 15. The mode is the most common salary, the salary that appears the most is the mode.
Alexandria is not so different after all
As mentioned, the average hourly rate for nannies in the DC region was $16.28 in a recent national survey of nanny salaries and benefits. As it turns out, this is a pretty good reflection of the situation here in Alexandria.
Based on the responses to the Alexandria Nanny Survey, the average nanny hourly rate in Alexandria is $16.97.
The median salary is $16.00 per hour.
Based on the responses to the Alexandria Nanny Survey, the average nanny hourly rate in Alexandria is $16.97.
The median salary is $16.00 per hour.
A note on statistical methods in the survey
There were 46 responses to the survey but most of the ensuing analysis that will be posted here relies on a sample size of 42 surveys.
Most statistical calculations that we will post in the future exclude two high outlier survey responses. We decided these two outliers must be excluded but wanted to disclose their exclusion. Including the outliers when presenting median salary data may still yield a robust estimate. But we nevertheless exclude the two outliers at the high end of the hourly rate even in calculating the median hourly rate, as compared to the mean.
We exclude the high pair for three reasons. First and most importantly, the two high outliers were flagged as coming from identical computer DNS numbers. The DNS is a unique identifier that can track the source of the survey response. They were also submitted in close proximity in time. Thus, there is an inference that the two high outliers are not credible responses.
Second, these two high responses were not identical but were similar in other ways. Had they been identical, they would have been more credible. For example they may have been mistakenly submitted twice by accident. Instead, they both contained extremely high pay rates with rather low work loads. They simply bore no resemblance to any other survey responses, except each other. Combined with the fact they came from the same DNS number, their credibility is eroded further.
Third, the two high outliers were outlandish. They would result in an annual salary in excess of $100,000 per year. These responses were many many standard deviations away from the mean, and thus the characterization as an outlier is statistically sound. Exclusion is one appropriate statistical method to mange outliers, especially considering how many standard deviations away they were from the mean. Simply put, no other survey responses were even close to this pair. While we could alternatively manage these two high outliers through a frequency distribution to mitigate the extreme number of standard deviations from the mean, their origin from an identical DNS computer number calls into question their underlying good faith. Surveymonkey is supposed to block repeated attempts to game the survey. But it was successful in flagging the identical DNS numbers.
This transparent description of how the two high outliers were excluded of course allows any reader who wishes to disregard the evidence of bad faith in these two survey responses to simply consider the pair of high outliers part of the survey for their own purposes. But we will not taint the calculations with a pair of responses that are excluded on sound statistical principles.
On the other hand, if you are the person who submitted one (or both) of these outlier responses, and would like to discuss including them, email us at rosemontnanny@yahoo.com. The pair of postings were made on Monday April 19 at 4:41 and 4:50 pm.
There were also two live in nanny responses. Some aspects of these responses will be excluded, such as calculation of mean and median and other numbers. But these live in responses will still be included in other data points. Stay tuned for mode. We will also be posting a wide variety of statistics, such as cross-tabs on mean and median salary broken down by experience levels.
Most statistical calculations that we will post in the future exclude two high outlier survey responses. We decided these two outliers must be excluded but wanted to disclose their exclusion. Including the outliers when presenting median salary data may still yield a robust estimate. But we nevertheless exclude the two outliers at the high end of the hourly rate even in calculating the median hourly rate, as compared to the mean.
We exclude the high pair for three reasons. First and most importantly, the two high outliers were flagged as coming from identical computer DNS numbers. The DNS is a unique identifier that can track the source of the survey response. They were also submitted in close proximity in time. Thus, there is an inference that the two high outliers are not credible responses.
Second, these two high responses were not identical but were similar in other ways. Had they been identical, they would have been more credible. For example they may have been mistakenly submitted twice by accident. Instead, they both contained extremely high pay rates with rather low work loads. They simply bore no resemblance to any other survey responses, except each other. Combined with the fact they came from the same DNS number, their credibility is eroded further.
Third, the two high outliers were outlandish. They would result in an annual salary in excess of $100,000 per year. These responses were many many standard deviations away from the mean, and thus the characterization as an outlier is statistically sound. Exclusion is one appropriate statistical method to mange outliers, especially considering how many standard deviations away they were from the mean. Simply put, no other survey responses were even close to this pair. While we could alternatively manage these two high outliers through a frequency distribution to mitigate the extreme number of standard deviations from the mean, their origin from an identical DNS computer number calls into question their underlying good faith. Surveymonkey is supposed to block repeated attempts to game the survey. But it was successful in flagging the identical DNS numbers.
This transparent description of how the two high outliers were excluded of course allows any reader who wishes to disregard the evidence of bad faith in these two survey responses to simply consider the pair of high outliers part of the survey for their own purposes. But we will not taint the calculations with a pair of responses that are excluded on sound statistical principles.
On the other hand, if you are the person who submitted one (or both) of these outlier responses, and would like to discuss including them, email us at rosemontnanny@yahoo.com. The pair of postings were made on Monday April 19 at 4:41 and 4:50 pm.
There were also two live in nanny responses. Some aspects of these responses will be excluded, such as calculation of mean and median and other numbers. But these live in responses will still be included in other data points. Stay tuned for mode. We will also be posting a wide variety of statistics, such as cross-tabs on mean and median salary broken down by experience levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)