Hiring nanny one-on-one when baby is smaller with plan to transition to nanny share?

[Anonymous]

Is it a crazy idea to think about hiring a nanny to be one-on-one with our infant for a few months while they're very young (would need a nanny starting around 3-4 months old) and then try to bring in another family to save money as the baby gets older (maybe around 10-12 months, but could be flexible on that if there's a reason to)? Would many nannies be interested in this, or would this kind of transition turn a lot of good nannies off? (And do you think other nanny-share families would have concerns about a situation like this?) What hourly rates might be reasonable for something like this, both for the one-on-one and the nanny-share stages (we're in Silver Spring?)

Has anybody done this or know anyone who's done this?

[Anonymous]

I think many families would worry that the nanny would already be so much bonded with your baby, and maybe their baby wouldn't get as much attention.

Also, it might be hard for you to switch to having to share the employer role, when previously you were used to being able to call all the shots.

What are your reasons for wanting a nanny share after about a year, instead of just continuing with the one on one care?

[Anonymous]

Some nannies would be interested.

My main concern would be making sure it's "worth it" for the nanny to transition to a share. I think most would hope for a decent salary jump, and not just an extra $2 per hour.

Many nannies are okay with making $20-$22 per hour for a nanny share, but if you are already paying $18/hour just for your family, a bump to $20/hour for a share wouldn't be worth it.

I would aim for $18/hour for just your family, and an increase to $22 for the share.

[Anonymous]

Both my kids were in shares, and both shares were set up this way. We joined younger than a year, but I certainly knew people who took a year or close to it off and were looking for child care then. Also depends on how strongly you feel that the kids be the same age (that is, you could have a four-month-old join the share when your child is a year, and that would give you a pretty large pool of families looking; we preferred same-age shares but I know both families and nannies who prefer having a gap, too).

I did feel somewhat like the nanny was more the other family's than ours in both cases, but in both cases the other family also hosted the share and in one case the nanny had cared for the family's older child too. So it may well have been the case, but it was still a good experience for us overall.

We paid $16 solo/$22 for the first share (4 years ago) and $17 solo/$24 for the second (2 years ago). In both cases the rates were negotiated before we joined the share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are your reasons for wanting a nanny share after about a year, instead of just continuing with the one on one care?

The cost savings... it's probably $15-$20K cheaper a year or so to do a nanny share versus one on one, right? It would be a stretch for us to pay that much extra for 2 or 3 years (not impossible, but tight), whereas doing it for 6 or 9 months feels like a more manageable splurge on our part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are your reasons for wanting a nanny share after about a year, instead of just continuing with the one on one care?

The cost savings... it's probably $15-$20K cheaper a year or so to do a nanny share versus one on one, right? It would be a stretch for us to pay that much extra for 2 or 3 years (not impossible, but tight), whereas doing it for 6 or 9 months feels like a more manageable splurge on our part.

Not that much cheaper unless you have a lot of overtime, FWIW. PP above--I think we paid about $25K all in (included taxes, vacation, etc.) for 36 hours/week. Had we been doing that solo, it would have been maybe $10K more (basically, $5/hour more). The reason the two families did it in the shares we joined was just that they wanted one-on-one attention in the early months. It worked out for us because DH and I stacked our time off so were looking later than the four-month mark when many people go back to work. I do know lots of people who started with shares from the get-go and were happy with that, though. The main downsides are coordinating with the other family (need to have a good fit and need good communication) and schlepping the child back and forth if you aren't hosting or if you trade off who hosts, but those weren't big deals for us. If you have really wacky or long hours, though, you may find solo care easier to manage (or else you just plan to host--the family my older child shared with were doctors, and frequently hours were weird so the share was set up so that there were set daytime hours for both kids, and then when they needed later care the nanny stayed on but switched to solo rates when our time ended. But we could never have hosted that share--it would have been insanity).

Also FWIW, I'd prefer a share even if we had had the finances to do solo--both my kids became good buddies with their share partners and while they also met up with other nannies and their charges and did various play groups, storytimes, etc., it was really nice for them to have a built-in playmate. That matters more in the later months/years, though--under a year, they are really just co-existing. It really just depends on your family's needs, though.

[Anonymous]

I am doing something similar to this OP! I am starting out with a nanny for a few months to work individually with my child with the intention of moving into a nanny-share with one more child (part-time) which will include a pay raise of about 20% so she is happy with that as we cannot pay the full salary long-term ourselves. She is coming to us from working in a daycare and so this will be a big pay raise for her.