Umsatzverlust durch konservative Überbesetzung zur Ratio-Sicherheit

Definition

ACECQA and state departments stipulate that ratios (e.g. 1:4 under 24 months; 1:5 for 24–36 months; 1:11 for preschool; 1:15 school age) must be met at all times, with only educators physically present and working directly with children counted.[3][4][5][8] Ratios are calculated across the whole service, and services must also comply with qualification requirements and, in some states, early childhood teacher (ECT) ratio rules.[3][7][8] To avoid unintentional non‑compliance due to late staff, breaks or fluctuating attendance, many operators roster “buffer” staff or cap enrolments below their approved capacity, particularly in high‑cost infant and toddler rooms. Given that wages are the largest cost for ECEC services, even a small systematic overstaffing (e.g. 0.2–0.5 FTE per room across a 60‑place centre) can cost AUD 15,000–40,000 per year in unnecessary wages. Conversely, holding back 2–4 licensed places in high‑fee rooms (e.g. AUD 120 per day for 48 weeks) to maintain a margin for ratio compliance can forgo AUD 11,000–46,000 in annual revenue. Together, this creates a plausible capacity‑loss band in the tens of thousands of AUD annually for a single centre when ratio monitoring is manual and conservative.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Childcare centres in Australia 🇦🇺 routinely waste AUD 20,000–60,000 per year by overstaffing and leaving licensed places empty to stay safely within ratios. Automation of dynamic ratio calculations and forecasting enables full utilisation of approved places with lean staffing.

Affected Stakeholders

Approved Provider / Owner, Centre Director / Nominated Supervisor, Finance Manager, Roster / Workforce Planner

Related Business Risks