Advice On Rates For Different Ages?

[Newprovider16]

well here in CA I can have 4 infants and no other kids, or I can have 8 kids, 6 toddlers and 2 school agers, so it makes sense for me to charge more.
I also charge a higher rate for p/ters as its almost impossible for me to fill in the other days.

I also am in California and it makes sense to charge extra for younger children to me as well. They take up double our capacity limit. (2 infants= one older child)

That being said, I charge a decent rate for older children ($33 preschool, $30 school age)...so even when the kids get older I already set myself up to get paid something I feel is worth it.

I was interested in this discussion because I'm actually thinking of charging an even higher rate for babies under age one. Reason being that even though they can be easy, the regulations regarding safe sleep for infants under one here in California are getting ridiculous. (Extra record keeping, and not allowed to schedule sleep times which means no quiet time, among other new regulations).

I think the state should just pay mom's to stay home a full year of they are going to treat home daycare like a hospital.

Thinking of raising the rate to $45 a day for under age one, and raising the bar to $38/day for kids who are over one but not potty trained.

My rate is already $38/day for under two but the potty training phase is stressful, so I don't think the rate should drop to the $33/day preschool rate until potty trained.

I've already had two kids poop at nap and take off their pull ups in the crib and smear feces everywhere (on several occasions) Parents need an incentive.

Yes, I think you should charge extra for younger.....but make sure the older kids rates are something that makes you happy.

[Blackcat31]

I also am in California and it makes sense to charge extra for younger children to me as well. They take up double our capacity limit. (2 infants= one older child)

That being said, I charge a decent rate for older children ($33 preschool, $30 school age)...so even when the kids get older I already set myself up to get paid something I feel is worth it.

I am not in CA but I know everything is super expensive there....but I charge more than what you listed and I live in a really rural state/area. I think your rates might be on the low end...depending on where in CA you live though.

I think the state should just pay mom's to stay home a full year of they are going to treat home daycare like a hospital.

How would the state fund that?
Taxpayer money? I do NOT think any one should have to pay for someone else's choice to have a child. Not the state, not the country and certainly not the tax payers.

Children are expensive.

Thinking of raising the rate to $45 a day for under age one, and raising the bar to $38/day for kids who are over one but not potty trained.

My rate is already $38/day for under two but the potty training phase is stressful, so I don't think the rate should drop to the $33/day preschool rate until potty trained.

I've already had two kids poop at nap and take off their pull ups in the crib and smear feces everywhere (on several occasions) Parents need an incentive.

Attaching a lower rate to potty trained kids creates a whole 'nother issue where parents will swear their kid is trained when they aren't. I understand why some providers want to go that route but in my opinion, it's just making things more complicated.

I am limited too on how many infants, toddlers and preschoolers I can have at one time, but I just went the easy route and charge one flat weekly rate for all the spaces no matter what age as each age seems to have it's issues. I like/dislike something about each of the age categories. Except school age kids.... I don't like enough about that age (when mixed with other age groups) to take them. ::

Welcome to the forum too! happyface

[hwichlaz]

I charge more for infants, and I don't discount it when they age up, because parents lock in their first contract rate for the duration of care. I raise my rates every two years, by my second rate change, they are coming out ahead.

[Newprovider16]

How would the state fund that?
Taxpayer money? I do NOT think any one should have to pay for someone else's choice to have a child. Not the state, not the country and certainly not the tax payers.

Children are expensive.



Attaching a lower rate to potty trained kids creates a whole 'nother issue where parents will swear their kid is trained when they aren't.

Thanks for the advice on my rates being low....I have already drawn up a new rate sheet to match my countys maximum state reimbursement, which is just about $45 infants, $40 preschool, and $36 school age. I simply looked it up online to see what the state was maxing out at, and there was an option to select my county.

I did a little bit of research on charging different rates for potty trained versus non potty trained, and 1 idea really made sense to me. One facility defines being potty trained as no accidents at the daycare site for 2 weeks that way the parents aren't the ones that get to say when the kid is potty trained, the center is.

On my idea regarding letting parents stay home for a full year after the birth of a child I think it's a wonderful idea and to be honest with you the state is already paying so much in welfare, daycare subsidies, public schooling etc it just makes more sense to offer that to the parents where the kids are going to be better off, especially if California wants to make the regulations for caring for infants under 1 so strict.I guess what I'm saying is, newsflash people, the taxpayers in the state are already paying a buttload for other people's kids to be taken care of. they can pay up to almost $1,000 a month just for one child to be in child care if the parents schedule warrants it.

In some other developed countries the maternity leave is two years. I fully 100% support seeing that here in the United States in the future because I am a family-centered, child-centered individual who believes in a world where we help each other. And let's face it don't buy into the foolish idea that it's taxpayer against taxpayer let's look at all of our politicians and wealthy Bank owners who are really the ones screwing us over.

And these days women are having fewer and fewer children, so it would only be a short time compared to the 40 years a woman puts into working.

State already pays:
Medical bills for birth/prenatal
Pediatric bills
3 months paid birth/bonding leave (could be $500/week)
Daycare tution (could be up to $1000/month)
Public school ($10,000/year approx)
Welfare for some families (also pays gas to and from work and other expenses)
Financial aid for college roughly $5,000/year PLUS college tuition
Tax refund up to $2000 per kid

Best believe everyone will be applying for financial aid when their kid goes to college, and most everyone gets SOME kind of help for their choice to have kids. I'm kind of Leary of using terms that make Parenthood sound like a curse, or a cross that one must bear alone.

[Blackcat31]

Thanks for the advice on my rates being low....I have already drawn up a new rate sheet to match my countys maximum state reimbursement, which is just about $45 infants, $40 preschool, and $36 school age. I simply looked it up online to see what the state was maxing out at, and there was an option to select my county.

I did a little bit of research on charging different rates for potty trained versus non potty trained, and 1 idea really made sense to me. One facility defines being potty trained as no accidents at the daycare site for 2 weeks that way the parents aren't the ones that get to say when the kid is potty trained, the center is.

On my idea regarding letting parents stay home for a full year after the birth of a child I think it's a wonderful idea and to be honest with you the state is already paying so much in welfare, daycare subsidies, public schooling etc it just makes more sense to offer that to the parents where the kids are going to be better off, especially if California wants to make the regulations for caring for infants under 1 so strict.I guess what I'm saying is, newsflash people, the taxpayers in the state are already paying a buttload for other people's kids to be taken care of. they can pay up to almost $1,000 a month just for one child to be in child care if the parents schedule warrants it.

In some other developed countries the maternity leave is two years. I fully 100% support seeing that here in the United States in the future because I am a family-centered, child-centered individual who believes in a world where we help each other. And let's face it don't buy into the foolish idea that it's taxpayer against taxpayer let's look at all of our politicians and wealthy Bank owners who are really the ones screwing us over.

And these days women are having fewer and fewer children, so it would only be a short time compared to the 40 years a woman puts into working.

State already pays:
Medical bills for birth/prenatal
Pediatric bills
3 months paid birth/bonding leave (could be $500/week)
Daycare tution (could be up to $1000/month)
Public school ($10,000/year approx)
Welfare for some families (also pays gas to and from work and other expenses)
Financial aid for college roughly $5,000/year PLUS college tuition
Tax refund up to $2000 per kid

Best believe everyone will be applying for financial aid when their kid goes to college, and most everyone gets SOME kind of help for their choice to have kids. I'm kind of Leary of using terms that make Parenthood sound like a curse, or a cross that one must bear alone.

that is great that you can raise your rates! From my recollection they seemed a bit low for your state but I wasn't positive. Glad you can raise them!! happyface

As for the other topic... we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

I am not supportive of anyone getting something for free that others must pay for. That includes the list of things the state may already be paying for.

I am in the camp of "if you want it, you must work for it and earn it" I don't believe in free rides for anyone.

I believe in opportunities and personal responsibility.
If you (general you) can't afford it, either work for it or learn to live without it.

As for the maternity leave in other countries...contrary to public belief, it's not free.
Someone (individually or collectively) pays for it.

[Msdunny]

I thought about this when I was considering opening this past fall. I had a friend who has been doing in-home care for 25 years who advised me to charge less for infants and more for older. To me, infants are harder, since they are more hands on, so I was thinking of charging more. I finally decided to just charge a full time/part time rate, and I am happy I made that decision. If I feel like I need more in the future, I will raise my rate across the board. I feel like I am a bit underpriced for my area, but am trying to fill my spots.

[Cat Herder]

"I fully 100% support seeing that here in the United States in the future because I am a family-centered, child-centered individual who believes in a world where we help each other."

That already exists in other countries. We (broad we) have fought many wars to prevent it from coming here. I am confident the majority will continue to fight it ever happening here.