List of Maryland "essential workers" daycares remaining open

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The centers can't survive on $1300/month per child, if that's the rate mandated by the state. I'm familiar with the inside financial workings of one of the large providers in MoCo and trust me, every single dollar of the tuition is used to pay employees and rent.

Especially since they aren’t guaranteeing full capacity, right? Versus during normal times centers fill every spot. So it isn’t even going from 2200 per kid to 1300, it’s also possibly reduced number of kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The centers can't survive on $1300/month per child, if that's the rate mandated by the state. I'm familiar with the inside financial workings of one of the large providers in MoCo and trust me, every single dollar of the tuition is used to pay employees and rent.

But, at least at some places, they claim they are still paying the teachers and presumably have to pay rent. $1,300 is a lot more than nothing. It’s obviously a bigger hassle than closing and there are some additional expenses from operating, but it is an interesting choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The centers can't survive on $1300/month per child, if that's the rate mandated by the state. I'm familiar with the inside financial workings of one of the large providers in MoCo and trust me, every single dollar of the tuition is used to pay employees and rent.

But, at least at some places, they claim they are still paying the teachers and presumably have to pay rent. $1,300 is a lot more than nothing. It’s obviously a bigger hassle than closing and there are some additional expenses from operating, but it is an interesting choice.

But if the center would get a greater percent from parents staying closed then remaining open and getting the meager amount from the state and not assume the risk of new kids coming in which could sound an alarm for health and safety, why would they stay open? The governor made a bad decision with the restrictions and tuition. Also Hogan did it last minute. If a center is caught not accepting new essential worker families they will be closed down and fined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shoe sent out an email saying they were looking into. They did not share why it didn’t work out and I don’t know if they weren’t allowed to do it or opted against it.

We are there and DH asked about it at pick-up yesterday. The rules apparently only permit a very small number of children to attend each center, and the reimbursement rates are much smaller than their regular tuition. I would imagine that doing so would also preclude them from getting any kind of federal assistance for small businesses, so it might not be worth it.

It’s rough for us because DH is essential and I’ve pretty much been made essential, and now we’ll have all three kids at home. We’re also not keen on sending our youngest to a facility we don’t know. He’s excited to be home with his older siblings, at least.

That’s interesting, and I guess I can understand their rationale. But, unless the revenue would really be substantially less than other aid available, I would have expect them to be more open given that email we got about how they are hoping to survive. Their later letter was a little more measured and they have taken a middle road in terms of payments while they are closed. It does make it a little harder to justify paying a lot while they are closed if they did pass up other significant revenues, even if less than normal.

The revenue is less than half of what they would get per kid, and they can have like 1/10th of their kids there. That’s absolutely not enough to justify them staying open, IMO. It’s not “significant” revenue by any stretch.

[Anonymous]

These restrictions suck. It is causing daycares to not stay open. Pretty sad. Especially when there are no doctors in the hospitals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shoe sent out an email saying they were looking into. They did not share why it didn’t work out and I don’t know if they weren’t allowed to do it or opted against it.

We are there and DH asked about it at pick-up yesterday. The rules apparently only permit a very small number of children to attend each center, and the reimbursement rates are much smaller than their regular tuition. I would imagine that doing so would also preclude them from getting any kind of federal assistance for small businesses, so it might not be worth it.

It’s rough for us because DH is essential and I’ve pretty much been made essential, and now we’ll have all three kids at home. We’re also not keen on sending our youngest to a facility we don’t know. He’s excited to be home with his older siblings, at least.

That’s interesting, and I guess I can understand their rationale. But, unless the revenue would really be substantially less than other aid available, I would have expect them to be more open given that email we got about how they are hoping to survive. Their later letter was a little more measured and they have taken a middle road in terms of payments while they are closed. It does make it a little harder to justify paying a lot while they are closed if they did pass up other significant revenues, even if less than normal.

The revenue is less than half of what they would get per kid, and they can have like 1/10th of their kids there. That’s absolutely not enough to justify them staying open, IMO. It’s not “significant” revenue by any stretch.

Where are you seeing that they could have 1/10th of the kids?

If that is accurate, I can understand. But, generally to turn down a revenue stream while simultaneously asking parents to pay for services they aren’t deceit doesn’t sit that well. Not a perfect analogy, but I’d be less likely to donate to someone who is unemployed if I knew they turned down a $15/hour job because it wasn’t worth their while to take anything less than $25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shoe sent out an email saying they were looking into. They did not share why it didn’t work out and I don’t know if they weren’t allowed to do it or opted against it.

We are there and DH asked about it at pick-up yesterday. The rules apparently only permit a very small number of children to attend each center, and the reimbursement rates are much smaller than their regular tuition. I would imagine that doing so would also preclude them from getting any kind of federal assistance for small businesses, so it might not be worth it.

It’s rough for us because DH is essential and I’ve pretty much been made essential, and now we’ll have all three kids at home. We’re also not keen on sending our youngest to a facility we don’t know. He’s excited to be home with his older siblings, at least.

That’s interesting, and I guess I can understand their rationale. But, unless the revenue would really be substantially less than other aid available, I would have expect them to be more open given that email we got about how they are hoping to survive. Their later letter was a little more measured and they have taken a middle road in terms of payments while they are closed. It does make it a little harder to justify paying a lot while they are closed if they did pass up other significant revenues, even if less than normal.

The revenue is less than half of what they would get per kid, and they can have like 1/10th of their kids there. That’s absolutely not enough to justify them staying open, IMO. It’s not “significant” revenue by any stretch.

Where are you seeing that they could have 1/10th of the kids?

If that is accurate, I can understand. But, generally to turn down a revenue stream while simultaneously asking parents to pay for services they aren’t deceit doesn’t sit that well. Not a perfect analogy, but I’d be less likely to donate to someone who is unemployed if I knew they turned down a $15/hour job because it wasn’t worth their while to take anything less than $25.

That is what the director told my DH at pick-up. It's something like four little kids and five big kids, total. That's it. It's not a revenue stream when they usually have 100 kids there at twice the cost. You can also look it up.

The places staying open are largely small in-home daycares that only have that many kids anyway. Large centers like The Shoe can't possibly be expected to continue operations under these restrictions (much as I wish they would; we've been there for over eight years with our three kids, and they're like family to us).

[Anonymous]

"The places staying open are largely small in-home daycares that only have that many kids anyway. Large centers like The Shoe can't possibly be expected to continue operations under these restrictions (much as I wish they would; we've been there for over eight years with our three kids, and they're like family to us)."

Right. We're at a large center that isn't opening under these circumstances either. They had only had 30 kids before they closed anyway, since the vast majority of parents were keeping their kids home, but now they're closed entirely (until this is over).

The other problem is that large centers don't want to deal with kids they don't know at all. If I were them, I'd have a lot of questions about whether I'd be allowed to kick one of these kids out if they bite other kids or do things that were destructive. There are just a ton of unknowns about having to suddenly incorporate unknown kids. I understand why the large centers don't want to deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shoe sent out an email saying they were looking into. They did not share why it didn’t work out and I don’t know if they weren’t allowed to do it or opted against it.

We are there and DH asked about it at pick-up yesterday. The rules apparently only permit a very small number of children to attend each center, and the reimbursement rates are much smaller than their regular tuition. I would imagine that doing so would also preclude them from getting any kind of federal assistance for small businesses, so it might not be worth it.

It’s rough for us because DH is essential and I’ve pretty much been made essential, and now we’ll have all three kids at home. We’re also not keen on sending our youngest to a facility we don’t know. He’s excited to be home with his older siblings, at least.

That’s interesting, and I guess I can understand their rationale. But, unless the revenue would really be substantially less than other aid available, I would have expect them to be more open given that email we got about how they are hoping to survive. Their later letter was a little more measured and they have taken a middle road in terms of payments while they are closed. It does make it a little harder to justify paying a lot while they are closed if they did pass up other significant revenues, even if less than normal.

The revenue is less than half of what they would get per kid, and they can have like 1/10th of their kids there. That’s absolutely not enough to justify them staying open, IMO. It’s not “significant” revenue by any stretch.

Where are you seeing that they could have 1/10th of the kids?

If that is accurate, I can understand. But, generally to turn down a revenue stream while simultaneously asking parents to pay for services they aren’t deceit doesn’t sit that well. Not a perfect analogy, but I’d be less likely to donate to someone who is unemployed if I knew they turned down a $15/hour job because it wasn’t worth their while to take anything less than $25.

That is what the director told my DH at pick-up. It's something like four little kids and five big kids, total. That's it. It's not a revenue stream when they usually have 100 kids there at twice the cost. You can also look it up.

The places staying open are largely small in-home daycares that only have that many kids anyway. Large centers like The Shoe can't possibly be expected to continue operations under these restrictions (much as I wish they would; we've been there for over eight years with our three kids, and they're like family to us).

My guess is some of the small in homes are ones that actually serve a decent number of essential employees already and are "locked in" to a community of medical, military, or fire/police workers-you know, ones near a military base or hospitals or ones run by the wife of a firefighter or cop or military. They may not even have to take new kids, if the existing kids already have parents in an essential field. Or they may only have to take a couple new kids that won't be hard to adjust to because they're neighbor kids or friends of existing kids.