Is it Necessary to Charge Rates According to Age?

[Abigail]

I'm conducting research to better educate myself before I start my in-home family childcare career. Is it necessary to charge different rates according to age?

I can have seven children in my care with me being the only provider and no more than three of the seven children can be under the age of 24 months. I could have nine children in my care following the same rules stated above, but the additional two need to be before/after school-aged children. I want to provide care for children up to age five. I will remain at the seven children limit when I do start up my childcare career.

It seems easier to have one set rate for all ages instead of a slightly higher rate for infants or those not potty-trained. If parents have to supply diapers, wipes, and infant formula/breastmilk--doesn't this already make the cost of childcare increase for them?

Please give me your feedback.

[Pammie]

I know many providers - in my area and on this forum - that charge depending on the child's age. I personally do not...all of my families pay the same rate per child regardless of the child's age. I also do not give sibling discounts.

My reasoning is this: although the infants and non-potty trained children might require more "hands on" attention during the day - I'm not providing food or disposable craft supplies for them either.

Also, my state allows just #6 children in my care at a time. If I offered a sibling discount, I would be reducing my earning potential.

Good luck to you!

[tmcp2001]

I charge based on age as do most providers in my area. I offer a sibling discount for full-time children only (10%) - I do this because I was a mom of four children enrolled in full-time care and understand just how difficult it is to pay for childcare for multiple children (I was pay nearly $500/week - on a Social Worker's salary ).

I think it is completely fair to charge based on age. While Pammie is right that parents are providing diapers/food for infants they are a LOT more work. I have a 5mo old just two days a week and 7 other children on those days - I can't plan outings on those days because of her nap/eating schedule, I don't do really involved crafts or activities on those days either. She just requires so much more time and attention than the other children.

Also, I charge based on potty training too. Diapers are more work! For example, I had FIVE in diapers (ages 2, 2, 2, 19mos, 5mos) on Friday and I counted - I changed EIGHTEEN diapers that day. Talk about a serious chunk of time (and washing my hands over, and over, and over). Again, MORE WORK.

IMO, it is completely fair to charge based on age. Kids require less hands-on work as they get older. I'm interested in hearing other's opinions about this!

[SunflowerMama]

I keep the same rate regardless of age as well.

[DCMom]

I also charge by the spot for the same reasons as Pammie. Each age has its own unique challenges/costs associated with it.

[boysx5]

I charge 200.00 a week for an infant spot which is under two since we can only have two under two here. I charge 175.00 a week for over two since thats the going rate here

[nannyde]

I know many providers - in my area and on this forum - that charge depending on the child's age. I personally do not...all of my families pay the same rate per child regardless of the child's age. I also do not give sibling discounts.

My reasoning is this: although the infants and non-potty trained children might require more "hands on" attention during the day - I'm not providing food or disposable craft supplies for them either.

Also, my state allows just #6 children in my care at a time. If I offered a sibling discount, I would be reducing my earning potential.

Good luck to you!

Yeah what she said and they don't get easier as they get older. They get harder. I do not give any discounts based on age and no sibling discounts. I do allow the siblings born into the day care have the rates of the older sibs. I raise my rates every year so if a sibling is born into the day care that has a three year old sib the new baby would come in at the rates from three years ago.

That's not an issue here really as I rarely get the second child. When I do get them they usually only last three months before they leave. I've only had one private pay sib group in the last nine years who stayed more than three months.

Once they pay my rates for two they might as well have a Nanny.

[judytrickett]

One rate. No dual rates. Infants take more of my one on one time in feeding them, moving them from place to place, equipment, food prep, wipes etc.

Older kids cost me craft supplies, toy breakage, and a lot more in food costs, and a lot more in water costs (ever calculated how much water a potty-trained kid uses flushing the toilet and washing their hands 10 times a day?).

One fee across the board.

[jen]

One fee here too!

[judytrickett]

I should also mention that the only reason there is even a thought process of dual fees in daycare is because of centre-based care. Because in centres there are more stringent regulations about staff to child ratios. And I know, for example, here in Ontario the ratio for a 12-18 mth old room is 1 staff member for every 3 kids. And then later, at the 3-5 yr old age it is 1 staff member for every eight kids.

So, just fewer staffing alone for the older groups allows a centre to charge less for older kids. Because infants up to 18 mths make the centre NO profit - the fees simply pay for staffing. And centres do this because it guarantees them those same infants that they made NO money on for 6 months a big profit for the 3 more years they have them at higher child to staff ratios.

In home daycare we don't get that priveledge. The staffing remains consistent. Therefore we can not take more kids when they are older to offset the shared costs of daycare.

[momma2girls]

I should also mention that the only reason there is even a thought process of dual fees in daycare is because of centre-based care. Because in centres there are more stringent regulations about staff to child ratios. And I know, for example, here in Ontario the ratio for a 12-18 mth old room is 1 staff member for every 3 kids. And then later, at the 3-5 yr old age it is 1 staff member for every eight kids.

So, just fewer staffing alone for the older groups allows a centre to charge less for older kids. Because infants up to 18 mths make the centre NO profit - the fees simply pay for staffing. And centres do this because it guarantees them those same infants that they made NO money on for 6 months a big profit for the 3 more years they have them at higher child to staff ratios.

In home daycare we don't get that priveledge. The staffing remains consistent. Therefore we can not take more kids when they are older to offset the shared costs of daycare.

THis is so true!!!!!

[mac60]

One rate across the board. I totally feel that an infant is so much easier to care for than a toddler/preschooler. If I was to charge more it would definately be for a toddler/preschooler.

[MommyMuffin]

I remember looking forward to the lower cost of care when my daughter turned 1. And now when she is 3 it will go down more. I havent done the math or checked other places but just seeing on paper that even though it is really hard to afford the care now, there is a time when it wont be so much. Just a parent perspective.

[Pammie]

I remember looking forward to the lower cost of care when my daughter turned 1. And now when she is 3 it will go down more. I havent done the math or checked other places but just seeing on paper that even though it is really hard to afford the care now, there is a time when it wont be so much. Just a parent perspective.

I **totally** get this from a parent's financial perspective - - - but from a provider's prospective, for me, it would be like taking a cut in pay, after putting in 3 years of lots of my heart, soul, love and hard work

[DBug]

From a provider who is learning this the hard way -- charge ONE rate!

I have 5 toddlers (both f/t and p/t) that have or will be turning two over the course of about 6 months this year. Because of my pay structure, I will lose $5 per child PER DAY! It works out to $70/week in lost pay by the time they're all 2! What was I thinking?!:confused: I'm not doing any less work when they hit the magic age of 2, and the spot certainly hasn't lost any value. I have a waiting list of people looking for infant care -- financially it would make sense for me to term the toddlers I have and pick up some new babies. But that would be unfair and unethical, and something I would never do.

In the meantime, I've changed my fees to one rate, regardless of age for any new children that start. But take it from me -- start off the right way, with ONE rate!