More training for home care?

Backers say I-1029 would add career potential, but foes see added cost

RACHEL LA CORTE; The Associated Press
Last updated: October 20th, 2008 01:50 AM (PDT)

The two are on opposite sides of a ballot measure that would require long-term care workers to complete more training, pass a certification exam, and undergo background checks.

Faatoafe, who supports Initiative 1029, said it will help professionalize a job that many see as a dead end.

“Young people who are coming out of college or out of high school, they don’t see this as a career. They see it as a nowhere option,” she said.

But Robbins, who is opposed, said it’s unnecessary and will only add costs to taxpayers and people who pay for private care.

“I already get additional training with my employer. Why do I need any more?” asked Robbins, who noted that while she’ll be exempt under the measure, the extra training is a hurdle for others entering the field.

“The biggest requirement for this career path is to be a caring person with a senior,” she said. “It’s basics. It doesn’t require a big amount of training. We’re not allowed to do medical stuff. We’re not nurses.”

If the measure is approved by voters, beginning Jan. 1, 2010, 75 hours of training would be required for most long-term care workers, an increase of 41 hours from current requirements, depending on the worker’s classification. Those who joined the industry before 2010 would be exempt from the requirement.

New workers would have to pass state and federal background checks, and any long-term care worker hired to care for elderly or disabled persons whose care is paid for by the state would have to be state-certified as a home care aide.

According to the state Office of Financial Management, about 200,000 new long-term care workers are hired each year. If the measure is voted into law, the expected cost to the state is nearly $30 million for the 2009-2011 budget.

How to pay for it is a big question, in a year when there’s a looming $3.2 million deficit and the state is already having to tighten the belt.

The idea appears popular. A recent survey by independent pollster Stuart Elway found 80 percent of those polled supported it, with an additional 21 percent leaning yes. Only 3 percent were definitely opposed to it, with 4 percent leaning no and 13 percent undecided.

Supporters, including the Service Employees International Union, which represents some of those workers through its Local 775, are also ahead in money, bringing in nearly $950,000 compared to opponents’ $136,000.

Supporters note that long-term care aides, who provide a helping hand with elderly or disabled people’s day-to-day needs, presently get less training than hairdressers or animal masseurs.

“You’re looking at an investment, so that you know that the people that you’re hiring and bringing into your home are not only passing background checks, but see themselves as professionals,” said Yes on I-1029 campaign manager Jeff Parsons.

Julie Ferguson, co-president of the Washington Private Duty Association and a member of the coalition of long-term care providers opposed to I-1029, said they support training, but that the measure is trying to establish a one-size-fits-all rule.

“Many private home agencies do noncustodial care, they do things like scrapbooking, they do meal preparation, they do cleaning,” she said. “They don’t need 75 hours of training to do that.”

Ferguson said that most caregiver jobs are entry-level, and many people seeking those jobs won’t want to have to deal with a high training requirement.

“It’s going to diminish an already weak caregiver pool,” she said.

Originally published: October 20th, 2008 12:46 AM (PDT)