Funding increase - just had a rebate

[fluff1975]

Evening all

Apologies now that this is going to be rather long and possibly a bit waffly.

Back in January two of my 3 year olds started using half of their 15 funded hours with me. The hourly funded rate then, was £3.77. I charged £35 per for a 9 and a half hour day, so my 'hourly' rate worked out at £3.68. 9pence per hour less. Being new to the whole funded thing I phoned the early years funding dept at the local authority for advice about the shortfall. During that phone call, I was told I could bill parents for the extra 9 pence per hour, so I did. One child left me in the summer, the other moved all his funded hours to a pre-school, in September.

Skip forward to yesterday when I get an email with no explanation, just notice of a credit to my bank a/c of £63. When I phoned to ask why I was being paid £63 I was told it was back payment to April as the funding is now £4 per hour. I was delighted, £63 into my new buggy fund!

Then the penny dropped.

I owe that £63 back to the two families. Damn. I've since learnt that we're not allowed to claim the extra per hour, so cheers Mr Jobsworth at the council who told me to do that! Fortunately they both claimed exactly the same amount of hours and came on the same days so its just an even split.

Sooo, what I want to know is this, how do we make up the shortfall? I've got a child starting to use funding after Easter next year and there is no way I'm working for less than I'm worth! What do the rest of you do?

[JCrakers]

Crikes...think I got the whole picture

I was only 1per hour under when I first started but now I'm 12p per hour short as my fees went up to £3.75 but funding only rose to £3.63. I now charge for toddler groups that I take the children to as they used to be included in the fee or £1.50 per lunch

[Pixie dust]

Funding is a big problem in my area due to the LA reviewing their payment formula, we have had a big cut and the basic hourly rate is £3.30....we are not allowed to charge any top up fees etc a lot of childminders are no longer providing the 15 hrs funding as we are losing money and can't do anything about it. We can't afford to offer the funding and have a sustainable business.

[alex__17]

Our funding is less than my hourly rate and while we're not allowed to top up I charge extra to cover food and outings which takes the total to slightly under what I would normally charge

[Simona]

Evening all

Apologies now that this is going to be rather long and possibly a bit waffly.

Back in January two of my 3 year olds started using half of their 15 funded hours with me. The hourly funded rate then, was £3.77. I charged £35 per for a 9 and a half hour day, so my 'hourly' rate worked out at £3.68. 9pence per hour less. Being new to the whole funded thing I phoned the early years funding dept at the local authority for advice about the shortfall. During that phone call, I was told I could bill parents for the extra 9 pence per hour, so I did. One child left me in the summer, the other moved all his funded hours to a pre-school, in September.

Skip forward to yesterday when I get an email with no explanation, just notice of a credit to my bank a/c of £63. When I phoned to ask why I was being paid £63 I was told it was back payment to April as the funding is now £4 per hour. I was delighted, £63 into my new buggy fund!

Then the penny dropped.

I owe that £63 back to the two families. Damn. I've since learnt that we're not allowed to claim the extra per hour, so cheers Mr Jobsworth at the council who told me to do that! Fortunately they both claimed exactly the same amount of hours and came on the same days so its just an even split.

Sooo, what I want to know is this, how do we make up the shortfall? I've got a child starting to use funding after Easter next year and there is no way I'm working for less than I'm worth! What do the rest of you do?

I would recommend you keep all the correspondence filed safely regarding this matter if you feel your LA has misled you in any way...it seems weird they did that considering they have to audit any provider giving funding to make sure the 15 hours are free....by audit I mean they need to check your invoices do not show any charges for those hours only.

Having said that many providers are still subsidising the free entitlement and will continue to do so for the next 2 years....regardless of the rhetoric by the govt on the 30 hours.

Once the govt new offer is in place in 2017 ....it is still short of what real childcare and education really cost and it has no guarantee of an annual increase

The answer for cms is to review their fees....nurseries are already stating they will do so cms must adjust their fees to cover their costs....15 hours is free we agree...any other hours are to be charged at whatever level sustains your business....you are not a charity but a small business and I assume a family to support.

Good luck and keep posted on the free childcare as quite a lot is going on right now!

[mama2three]

my area ( and yours fluff) is one of the ones who have applied to trial the 30 hours from this September - just a disaster in terms of childrens best interests.

Not worried dreadfully personally about the funding issue , as businesses we make choices all the time about how we work , sustainability etc and this is the same. We can decide not to participate if its not going to work for us financially.

Its still the children who will lose out - not enough places for those who need them to close the attainment gap as places are taken by those who are already ahead but whose parents work.

[Simona]

my area ( and yours fluff) is one of the ones who have applied to trial the 30 hours from this September - just a disaster in terms of childrens best interests.

Not worried dreadfully personally about the funding issue , as businesses we make choices all the time about how we work , sustainability etc and this is the same. We can decide not to participate if its not going to work for us financially.

Its still the children who will lose out - not enough places for those who need them to close the attainment gap as places are taken by those who are already ahead but whose parents work.

Cms need to keep informed on the 30 hours...so much is happening and the govt is certainly driving their own agenda without thinking of the sector.
Those volunteers for the scheme may find how difficult their task is when they get down to the trials....would love to be a fly on the wall!!...my LA too is a volunteer...surprise surprise!!...and they are one of the lowest funding paid to providers in the country.

EY have expressed huge concerns about this 30 hours...if you look at the response to the Childcare Bill....a few from cms.... you will see how many are truly concerned ....I would say the whole 30 hours is no more than a con but many are not falling for it!

Cms need to decide on what to do ....I wonder if being out of the so called 'childcare market' will help or hinder cms?...or should they join the EY sector and raise their concerns on the scheme.

Interesting times ahead...as per usual the govt is pushing policies when the population is otherwise engaged with the Christmas festivities!!....usual trick!

[bunyip]

Evening all

Apologies now that this is going to be rather long and possibly a bit waffly.

Back in January two of my 3 year olds started using half of their 15 funded hours with me. The hourly funded rate then, was £3.77. I charged £35 per for a 9 and a half hour day, so my 'hourly' rate worked out at £3.68. 9pence per hour less. Being new to the whole funded thing I phoned the early years funding dept at the local authority for advice about the shortfall. During that phone call, I was told I could bill parents for the extra 9 pence per hour, so I did. One child left me in the summer, the other moved all his funded hours to a pre-school, in September.

Skip forward to yesterday when I get an email with no explanation, just notice of a credit to my bank a/c of £63. When I phoned to ask why I was being paid £63 I was told it was back payment to April as the funding is now £4 per hour. I was delighted, £63 into my new buggy fund!

Then the penny dropped.

I owe that £63 back to the two families. Damn. I've since learnt that we're not allowed to claim the extra per hour, so cheers Mr Jobsworth at the council who told me to do that! Fortunately they both claimed exactly the same amount of hours and came on the same days so its just an even split.

Sooo, what I want to know is this, how do we make up the shortfall? I've got a child starting to use funding after Easter next year and there is no way I'm working for less than I'm worth! What do the rest of you do?

Thanks for posting this: it's solved my potential problem.

It seems I've had a rebate/payment too, but it was completely unexplained. No email, no phone call, no letter: just a mysterious credit to my bank account from the LA. This sort of thing throws me into a spin. Without your thread I'd have assumed it was an error and spent a lot of wasted time making phone calls to try and repay it (it can take all day to get anyone to answer the phone at county hall, and then they have to find someone who knows anything about anything.

I'd been running a shortfall of around 25p ph on funded children, although I have none since September. So a nice little Xmas windfall, even if it is only a term's-worth. Just sorry you've had to end up passing yours back on to the parents.

I guess a lot of parents must think we're making a huge fuss over a shortfall that's numbered in pennies. 9p may sound very little, but it's out of pre-tax profits (ie. the money you live on) and no CM is making a huge per-hour profit.

[AliceK]

At current funding levels my LA would pay me £1.33 or 83p (depending on PT/FT child) less than my hourly rates for 3 and 4yr olds. So, I don't offer it, I can't afford to. Unless the funding is increased I wont be offering it anytime soon. Hardly any childminders in my LA offer it.

xx

[Simona]

I wonder if someone can clarify the refund being discussed here...Bunyip maybe you could...thank you

If any LAs 'readjusts' their funding fee....(some are actually lowering the funding at this very time since Morgan's announcement on the 30 hours) .... and sends a provider a BAC payment without clear explanation of the reason for the payment then you have a right to get a reply so you can enter the money in your financial records and be accountable for that as it will appear in your bank statements.
Any payment should also have a reference so easily identified.

There is always someone in the EY team financial dept...if they don't reply please knock on their door over and over again....maybe they are too busy working out how to 'cream off' from the funding and how little they can pay us!

If the LAs refunds a cm money because they have increased the funding rate it should not be refunded to the parents.... as they never paid for the funded hours in the first place? any refund will be back dated because ALL their funding payments to providers are backdated

unless I have interpreted the comments wrong I am puzzled as why parents would receive a refund from a cm on something that is free to them?
if wrong I apologise


The question posed by the OP is 'how do we make up the shortfall'?
As many cms will testify a vast majority 'subsidise' free childcare....some by a few pence, some like in my area by well over 50%...the shortfall is made up by raising fees outside the free hours and making parents pay for services....as long as the 15 hours are free you can charge what you like to run a sound business.
The irony is that in some LAs cms actually make a profit on the funding!!

The childcare market was created by this govt...and according to our Minister is going through a 'golden age'...so we need to reflect on his words and think 'competition' and also take account that many cms will be hit by a cut in 'tax credits' ....food for thought maybe.

AliceK...like your LA many others have cms who have refused to do funding but there are also other reasons behind it ....take a look at the replies to the Childcare Bill if you can...worrying indeed.....out of the 47,000 plus cms only 6100 offer funding...why?
that is obviously individual choice but personally I worry at what the consequences are ...only time will tell.

[Mouse]

If the LAs refunds a cm money because they have increased the funding rate it should not be refunded to the parents.... as they never paid for the funded hours in the first place? any refund will be back dated because ALL their funding payments to providers are backdated

unless I have interpreted the comments wrong I am puzzled as why parents would receive a refund from a cm on something that is free to them?
if wrong I apologise

.

From what I understand the OP was told to invoice the parents for the shortfall in the amount she received from the LA, so she invoiced parents for 9p an hour. She has since been told she shouldn't have done that and has also received an additional payment that covers the 9p shortfall.

She is planning to refund parents as a) she shouldn't have charged them in the first place and b) she has now received extra money from the LA that covers the shortfall.

As I see it, the only real problem is in the way she made up the shortfall, ie. Invoicing parents for it. I make up the shortfall by charging for food, which is acceptable to the auditors. Unless the OP is able to reword her invoices I guess she would fall foul of the funding rules and, if it was picked up on, would have to pay back the money anyway, whether or not the LA had paid an additional amount.

EDIT: having just re-read the post, I can see the OP is planning to return the whole £63 she has received when it should be just 9p an hour she thinks about paying back (personally I probably wouldn't bother). The extra she should keep and it's just an added bonus that the LA now pays more than her hourly rate

[Simona]

From what I understand the OP was told to invoice the parents for the shortfall in the amount she received from the LA, so she invoiced parents for 9p an hour. She has since been told she shouldn't have done that and has also received an additional payment that covers the 9p shortfall.

She is planning to refund parents as a) she shouldn't have charged them in the first place and b) she has now received extra money from the LA that covers the shortfall.

As I see it, the only real problem is in the way she made up the shortfall, ie. Invoicing parents for it. I make up the shortfall by charging for food, which is acceptable to the auditors. Unless the OP is able to reword her invoices I guess she would fall foul of the funding rules and, if it was picked up on, would have to pay back the money anyway, whether or not the LA had paid an additional amount.

Thanks for your reply Mouse....I 'think' I see it now but still remain puzzled by the LA's procedures....silly I know as each one of them seems to act on their own agenda and 'colourful' Terms and Conditions.

[bunyip]

I wonder if someone can clarify the refund being discussed here...Bunyip maybe you could...thank you

If any LAs 'readjusts' their funding fee....(some are actually lowering the funding at this very time since Morgan's announcement on the 30 hours) .... and sends a provider a BAC payment without clear explanation of the reason for the payment then you have a right to get a reply so you can enter the money in your financial records and be accountable for that as it will appear in your bank statements.
Any payment should also have a reference so easily identified.

There is always someone in the EY team financial dept...if they don't reply please knock on their door over and over again....maybe they are too busy working out how to 'cream off' from the funding and how little they can pay us!

If the LAs refunds a cm money because they have increased the funding rate it should not be refunded to the parents.... as they never paid for the funded hours in the first place? any refund will be back dated because ALL their funding payments to providers are backdated

unless I have interpreted the comments wrong I am puzzled as why parents would receive a refund from a cm on something that is free to them?
if wrong I apologise


The question posed by the OP is 'how do we make up the shortfall'?
As many cms will testify a vast majority 'subsidise' free childcare....some by a few pence, some like in my area by well over 50%...the shortfall is made up by raising fees outside the free hours and making parents pay for services....as long as the 15 hours are free you can charge what you like to run a sound business.
The irony is that in some LAs cms actually make a profit on the funding!!

The childcare market was created by this govt...and according to our Minister is going through a 'golden age'...so we need to reflect on his words and think 'competition' and also take account that many cms will be hit by a cut in 'tax credits' ....food for thought maybe.

AliceK...like your LA many others have cms who have refused to do funding but there are also other reasons behind it ....take a look at the replies to the Childcare Bill if you can...worrying indeed.....out of the 47,000 plus cms only 6100 offer funding...why?
that is obviously individual choice but personally I worry at what the consequences are ...only time will tell.

I agree with Mouse's summary of the Op's situation. But wouldn't it be so much simpler (and fairer) all round if we all just worked to the Scottish system?

I will chase up the LA for information on my BACS windfall, but the OP's case means that my bank credit makes sense now. I'll do this by the most efficient route. That means asking one of my clients to ask someone at her church to ask their husband to ask someone they work with at County Hall to give me a ring when they're next in the office (some time next month.) Experience shows this is so much more reliable and time-effective than hoping they'll pick up the phone if I call directly.

Much as I wish to avoid an argument (honestly ) and as much as I hate the Tories, the one thing I wouldn't lay at their door is the invention of the childcare market. I'll grant you they do like to call it a "childcare market" as their odious money-obsessed creed believes that only financial relationships have any relevance, but they didn't invent it.

The earliest reference I can find is that of Deborah working as a wet-nurse to Rebekah, wife of Isaac in the Old Testament (Genesis 35:8 if you're interested) in exchange for board and lodging (according to scholarly expostulations of the Torah.) This, despite predating the Childcare Act by several millennia, would in today's terms qualify as the provision of childcare services "for reward" and therefore not exempt under current regulations. In the interests of diversity, the earliest reference in Islamic reference is of Asiya, attempted wet-nurse wet-nurse to Moses (and a bit of a failure to boot), around 5-6 centuries later, presumably in exchange for a room at the Pharoah's court and payment of grain which was standard currency under the 19th dynasty of New Kingdom Egypt. This gives us dates of anywhere between 1900BC and 1400BC (according to personal preferences in deeply-held irrational belief system) for evidence of the 'childcare market', making it around 3,500 to 4,000 years old.

I am however prepared to accept that neither Tory thinking nor funding levels have moved on much in those 4,000 years.

[blue bear]

Evening all

Apologies now that this is going to be rather long and possibly a bit waffly.

Back in January two of my 3 year olds started using half of their 15 funded hours with me. The hourly funded rate then, was £3.77. I charged £35 per for a 9 and a half hour day, so my 'hourly' rate worked out at £3.68. 9pence per hour less. Being new to the whole funded thing I phoned the early years funding dept at the local authority for advice about the shortfall. During that phone call, I was told I could bill parents for the extra 9 pence per hour, so I did. One child left me in the summer, the other moved all his funded hours to a pre-school, in September.

Skip forward to yesterday when I get an email with no explanation, just notice of a credit to my bank a/c of £63. When I phoned to ask why I was being paid £63 I was told it was back payment to April as the funding is now £4 per hour. I was delighted, £63 into my new buggy fund!

Then the penny dropped.

I owe that £63 back to the two families. Damn. I've since learnt that we're not allowed to claim the extra per hour, so cheers Mr Jobsworth at the council who told me to do that! Fortunately they both claimed exactly the same amount of hours and came on the same days so its just an even split.

Sooo, what I want to know is this, how do we make up the shortfall? I've got a child starting to use funding after Easter next year and there is no way I'm working for less than I'm worth! What do the rest of you do?

You need to refund the top up fee you charged,so the 9p per hour not the full refund you got from the council. Here we are told the government funding only pays for education so you can ask extras for snacks/meals/outings but this charge cannot be compulsory parents must have the option of alternatives such as sending in food for snacks/meals

[Simona]

I agree with Mouse's summary of the Op's situation. But wouldn't it be so much simpler (and fairer) all round if we all just worked to the Scottish system?

I will chase up the LA for information on my BACS windfall, but the OP's case means that my bank credit makes sense now. I'll do this by the most efficient route. That means asking one of my clients to ask someone at her church to ask their husband to ask someone they work with at County Hall to give me a ring when they're next in the office (some time next month.) Experience shows this is so much more reliable and time-effective than hoping they'll pick up the phone if I call directly.

Much as I wish to avoid an argument (honestly ) and as much as I hate the Tories, the one thing I wouldn't lay at their door is the invention of the childcare market. I'll grant you they do like to call it a "childcare market" as their odious money-obsessed creed believes that only financial relationships have any relevance, but they didn't invent it.

The earliest reference I can find is that of Deborah working as a wet-nurse to Rebekah, wife of Isaac in the Old Testament (Genesis 35:8 if you're interested) in exchange for board and lodging (according to scholarly expostulations of the Torah.) This, despite predating the Childcare Act by several millennia, would in today's terms qualify as the provision of childcare services "for reward" and therefore not exempt under current regulations. In the interests of diversity, the earliest reference in Islamic reference is of Asiya, attempted wet-nurse wet-nurse to Moses (and a bit of a failure to boot), around 5-6 centuries later, presumably in exchange for a room at the Pharoah's court and payment of grain which was standard currency under the 19th dynasty of New Kingdom Egypt. This gives us dates of anywhere between 1900BC and 1400BC (according to personal preferences in deeply-held irrational belief system) for evidence of the 'childcare market', making it around 3,500 to 4,000 years old.

I am however prepared to accept that neither Tory thinking nor funding levels have moved on much in those 4,000 years.

Thank you for your reply Bunyip.

No need for an argument as I assume we are allowed to have 'slightly differing' points of view in this forum?

I kind of agree that the 'childcare market' started a bit earlier than the current govt but under different circumstances and with different aims.
It was the delightful and clueless Truss who turned into a market with all providers being stall holders suffocating under endless red tape and terms and conditions and forever subsidising childcare for parents.

...in fact Truss is obsessed with any kind of market...look no further than her speech on her trip to China...or maybe you should not look as it is the most embarrassing one ever made!

I assume you have only known childcare under this Tory govt?...lets go back to 2004 and that EVERY CHILD MATTERS legislation, that famous Green Paper.....a good piece of work which Gove immediately confined to the archives once he took over at the DCSF...renaming it DfE.

That ECM did what it said on the tin....it included every child in its law!
We now have a govt that is spending millions to provide 'free' childcare to children whose parents both work, can earn up to £100,000 and if so ask a poorly paid provider to subsidise their childcare...in turn that poorly paid provider will claim Tax Credits to keep her family afloat but soon that will be cut while the small business expenses rise at all times.

Sorry about the deviation...let's go back to when administering free childcare was up to the providers and simple as in 1997 when I found it a pleasure to do, when red tape hardly existed but accountability was easily evidenced....it was such a good system but some bright spark changed it !

This govt is constantly cutting back while at the same time increasing the burden of red tape for EY
we are drowning in it, if you add DfE and Ofsted requirements together and yet the govt does not understand that it is the real reason for the high cost of childcare and in turn the high fees for parents....all thanks to More Great Childcare by Truss!

It is rather intriguing that suddenly LAs are topping up providers' funding calling it a 'rebate'?
A rebate has many meanings: bonus, allowance, refund etc etc ...maybe these LAs had a surplus from their creaming off and are giving providers a bonus after funding them so little in the first place ? (it happened in my LA a while back where Network CMs only were rewarded with a surprise grant out of the blue...no one knew why...history repeats itself!)

whatever amount they sent you should be clearly referenced so you will find it easy to account for in your BAC and accounts/income

The strange thing is that the govt has just announced the funding to LAs...a rather opportunistic coincidence that LAs were at the same time refunding money that belonged to EY in the first place?

[fluff1975]

Here is an update for you - neither family want the money back! They've both (independently) told me that I worked the hours, I should therefore be paid for that work. Plus, one of those families has a little one who will be funded from Easter. Mum said in no uncertain terms that I am an excellent childminder and she would not see me working at a loss, and that when the time comes, if that is the case then she will top up the payments cash in hand!
I've also contacted the funding dept and told them in no uncertain terms myself what I think of the 'advice' I was initially given. Pah.

[Simona]

Good for you fluff 1985!!...even LAs can be held accountable!