Choosing between au pairs without turning people into scores

You liked the first conversation. The second person has more experience on paper. A third speaks a language your children are learning. By the end of the week, you can remember how the calls felt but not who said they could stay until spring.

This is the point where a shortlist earns its place. Keep the practical information together, then use it to decide what to ask next. A table can reveal a missing detail. It cannot decide whether two parties should share a home.

Agree on essential needs before comparing people

Write three short lists with the other adults in your household:

• Must be workable: the actual tasks, compatible dates, communication needed for the routine, and the destination's eligibility requirements.
• Could be arranged: a skill that could be learned with appropriate support, transport you could provide, or a start window you could adjust.
• Would be nice: shared hobbies, another language, or interests you would enjoy having in common.

Be willing to question your first list. If driving seems essential, is it because of a journey that really cannot be covered another way, or because it would make things more convenient? Conversely, do not quietly move a real requirement into “nice to have” because you enjoyed a call.

Eligibility needs its own check. A profile match does not establish a valid immigration or programme route. Start with the relevant country guide, and confirm unresolved points with the authority or programme involved.

Use comparison to find questions, not a winner

Save promising profiles while browsing. In Saved profiles, choose two or three au pairs to compare. The table brings together details already shared in their profiles, including languages, experience and practical skills.

“Not shared” means you do not know. It does not mean no experience, no qualification or no interest. Likewise, a profile field is self-reported information, not an independent assessment.

A useful next step from the table might be: “You mention first aid on your profile. What training was that, and when did you take it?” For someone who has not filled in the field, ask the same substantive question without implying that they have failed a check.

Keep facts and assumptions in separate columns

The worksheet below is fictional. It illustrates how two people can require different follow-up questions without assigning either a score.

Keep sensitive notes private and limited to what you need for the decision. Do not put identity documents, health information or speculation about someone's character in a shared comparison document. Ask for information through the appropriate process and with consent.

Look more closely at the experience that matters

“Two years of childcare” could describe several hours every weekday or occasional weekends. Ask about frequency, age groups, tasks, supervision and how responsibilities changed over time. You are trying to understand the experience, not to catch someone exaggerating.

If references are appropriate, explain why you would like them and obtain consent through the relevant process. Useful questions to a referee concern what they directly observed: the responsibilities involved, reliability, communication and situations in which support was needed. Do not treat a reference as a guarantee or invite unrelated personal information.

If first aid matters to your arrangement, use the British Red Cross learning resources to identify topics to discuss and training to investigate. A tick in a profile does not tell you whether someone's training is current or suitable for your situation.

Arrange a second conversation around the gaps

Send a short agenda: the proposed schedule, one or two practical questions, and time for the au pair's questions. Our interview guide includes wording for money, privacy and schedule changes.

The conversation should also test your household's ability to meet the other person's needs. If classes clash with your routine or transport leaves them isolated, that is a joint planning problem. It is not something to dismiss because the profile otherwise looks strong.

At the end, ask each other which points are settled and which remain open. A sensible decision may be to continue talking, seek advice about the route, change the proposed arrangement, or stop.

Pause when pressure replaces a normal process

Be cautious if someone insists on an immediate decision, demands an unexpected payment or asks you to use an unfamiliar payment route. Do not send money or sensitive documents merely to prove that you are serious. Check claimed fees with the named organisation through independently found contact details.

The US Federal Trade Commission's scam guidance explains common pressure and payment tactics. For concerns about an AuPairsy interaction, use the Safety centre. A mismatch in preferences is not a safety report; suspected deception or unsafe conduct deserves a different response.

Close a conversation respectfully

If you decide not to continue, a short clear message is kinder than leaving the other person guessing:

Thank you for taking the time to speak with us. After reviewing our plans, we have decided not to continue with this arrangement. We appreciate the conversation and wish you well with your search.

You can give a truthful practical reason if appropriate, but do not compare the person with another candidate or send an unsolicited assessment of their personality. They are making a decision about your family too.

Removing a saved profile is a private organisation action. It does not send a rejection or delete a conversation. If you have been actively talking, communicate your decision directly.

Before moving towards a placement, confirm the unresolved terms and route requirements together. A shortlist is finished when both sides understand what they are agreeing to, not when a table looks complete.