I would never hire #1 to take care of three children, including an infant. I would go with #2 for sure, but #3 is a viable option.

Anonymous wrote:I had part time nannies for years. None lasted longer than a year and a half, and none left before a year.

Whenever you hire a part time nanny, whatever she tells you, there is a risk she will leave either for full time, or to leave nannying altogether.

Most people who want part time work want it for a specific reason, like family obligations or school, or don't actually *need* a job and are looking to bring in extra money. Once the specific circumstances change, group 1 will want full time work (or decide to stay home full time), and group 2 may decide it's just not worth it.

My point is that I wouldn't worry too much about #3 leaving soon, in part because it's unlikely any of these women will stay for years and years and years.

You have a good point, but as you said, it's "most people" not all, meaning the prospective employer needs to delve into the nanny candidate's circumstances to judge how long they are likely to stay in the job. Our first PT nanny was on the older side so wasn't eager for extra hours and money and I believe would have been happy to stay with us for years if we hadn't let her go.

Another factor is pay, a nanny seeking FT work would be willing to accept PT work if you are willing to pay her a premium rate. Our current nanny had offers for FT work, but accepted our PT position, presumably because the rate we offered her was high enough to make it worth her while. I think the other jobs might have been more pay, but for significantly more hours.

With that many kids and those ages, you're considering someone with zero baby experience and one so so reference? Lady you can't be helped!

I had part time nannies for years. None lasted longer than a year and a half, and none left before a year.

Whenever you hire a part time nanny, whatever she tells you, there is a risk she will leave either for full time, or to leave nannying altogether.

Most people who want part time work want it for a specific reason, like family obligations or school, or don't actually *need* a job and are looking to bring in extra money. Once the specific circumstances change, group 1 will want full time work (or decide to stay home full time), and group 2 may decide it's just not worth it.

My point is that I wouldn't worry too much about #3 leaving soon, in part because it's unlikely any of these women will stay for years and years and years.

Eek!

All three of the Nannies have a very important deal-breaker which could seriously become a huge issue for your family if hired.

#1): Caring for a three-month old infant requires a bit of experience since one must know all about feedings, diapering, erratic sleep patterns & calming techniques.
It takes a special kind of patience to care for a young baby and caring for one alongside two other young children can be quite challenging whether one has experience or not.

#2): If this Nanny were so "Professional," I find it clearly odd that you cannot get ahold of any of her former employers.
It also is a huge red flag to me as well.
DO NOT HIRE HER w/out speaking to her former families first!!
It is very important to speak w/her previous families in order to get a first-hand personal account of how she fares around young children.

#3): You would be taking a significant risk if you hired this person.
Your children will become very attached to this woman + it may be tough for them if she ends up finding a full-time position and leaving them.
Plus you will always have some anxiety about whether or not she will be looking for another position behind your back.

If you have the time, I strongly encourage you to keep looking until you find a much better fit for your needs.

If that is not an option however, my choice would be candidate #1.

Good Luck!

Have you done trial days with all 3? I hired someone last spring that I really thought would be a great fit and I've been kicking myself for months now for not doing a trial day after realizing that she's just not as good as I had expected from the interview and references.

Definitely not #1, unless you are comfortable with risks. She has one reference from occasional babysitting gigs and no experience with babies. Maybe she would be great, but there is no way of knowing.

The leaves #3, since you cannot hire #2 unless you verify her references.

Anonymous wrote:Since you last said that #3 has assured you she wants part-time, I would definitely go with her. #1 is a gamble; she could turn out really great or really terribly. A couple PPs have had great experiences with a #1 whereas one PP and I have both had bad experiences with a #1. The #1 type nanny we hired was very enthusiastic about the job and had her strengths, but did not have the common sense and good judgment to make up for her lack of experience. I don't see why anyone would hire a #1 type unless they have a very limited candidate pool to work with, whether because of the low comp they are hiring or the area they live in has a small nanny market etc.

+1

Since you last said that #3 has assured you she wants part-time, I would definitely go with her. #1 is a gamble; she could turn out really great or really terribly. A couple PPs have had great experiences with a #1 whereas one PP and I have both had bad experiences with a #1. The #1 type nanny we hired was very enthusiastic about the job and had her strengths, but did not have the common sense and good judgment to make up for her lack of experience. I don't see why anyone would hire a #1 type unless they have a very limited candidate pool to work with, whether because of the low comp they are hiring or the area they live in has a small nanny market etc.

Only one reference for #1 - someone she has babysat for a few times. Reference was fine - said she's never been with the kids for more than a few hours at a time on date nights, but had no problems with her.

References for #3 were very good - prior families, all had good things to say.

I actually talked to #3 about my concern that she really wants full-time. She says she doesn't, and explained why, which makes sense.

And I just connected with one of #2's references, who had generally positive things to say. Pretty much backed-up what I expected - she's very involved in child development.

I know I'm lucky to have 3 great choices, but it's very stressful!

What were the references like for numbers 1 and 3?

MB here and I'd also hire #1.

Major red flag w/ number two if you can get references to return calls.

Major concern with number three if your gut tells you she really wants full-time. The best choice is a nanny who will be with you as long as you need her. You don't want to be searching again.

You're an experienced parent so you can show the less experienced nanny the ropes, and you won't have to deal w/ a more experienced nanny who might recommend doing things differently than what you've been doing for years. Also, babies just aren't hard (unless they have special needs.) A gentle nurturing spirit is critical, but you can teach any specific skills as long as basic safety and common sense are there.

Finally, the candidate for whom the job you are offering is a great opportunity is one who will be happier in the job in the long run. The "fit" has to be good on both sides - so I give an edge to someone who will be excited about the offer, not someone whom you feel will always be looking for something better.

And again - no references, no offer. The lack of responsiveness would be informative to me.

So great that you have choices!

The person we hired had zero experience with infants (we had a five month old) or toddlers and had never nannied before. Five years later we're still working with that same person.

I vote for #1.

I have gone with #1 twice now (4 nannies altogether). Regretted it both times. Both young women were great with the kids, but were not able to show up consistently and on time, and both had relationship issues, health issues, and family issues that also made them less reliable.

I will never again hire someone I have to rely on without strong nannying references. Sure, for back up or occasional sitting, but not as my regular nanny.

I know someone has to give them a shot, but once you've hired that sweet, eager young lady, and your kids love her, it is very, very difficult to make yourself fire her, no matter how unreliable she is. Just be prepared to do it if necessary if you decide to go with #1.

I realize this is the best kind of "problem" to have, but I am really struggling with which nanny to hire. We have it narrowed down to three great candidates. How do you choose? Which would you choose? The job is part-time. 3 kids - 3 months, 2 years and 5 years.

#1 - very sweet, and definitely really wants the job. Would probably be the most gentle/nurturing of the three. But, she has the least experience of the three, and no experience with babies.

#2 - more of a "professional nanny." Has the most nannying experience and had lots of great ideas of fun things to do with the kids. But, can't get any of her references to call me back.

#3 - very cheerful and friendly. Kids immediately took to her. References were great. Lots of experience in childcare. Only downside is that I'm kind of worried she really wants full-time, and might leave when she finds it.

FWIW, my 5-year-old liked 1 and 3 the best. Couldn't get an opinion out of the other two