How much for funded place?

[LauraS]

We get around £5 for 2 year olds and £3.75 for 3-4 year olds. I find it annoying that the LAs demand we are 'good'/'outstanding', but they base the funding payment on the average cost of childcare: presumably they include 'satisfactory' and 'total sh1te' (or whatever the official term is) provider's fees within the data they collect to calculate that average. It's rather like you or I going out for a meal and ordering the lobster and champagne, but only being prepared to pay the price of an average customer's bill at the end of the evening. IIUC LAs have the right to audit our income and attendance registers, to check the children are attending as claimed and that we aren't making additional charges for funded hours. I'd be very surprised if LAs had any right to audit what we spend the money on. For one thing, the rules say nothing about 'ring-fencing' the funding income for use on resources. If it were not allowed to be used for wages/profit, then most nurseries and preschools around here would be out of business. How many of us could agree to take children on just for the fun of it and make no profit to live on? We'd have to tell the LA we can't afford to have more than 1 funded child on that basis, and I somehow don't think the LAs would accept that.

Totally agree. I don't see how there can be any right to audit settings with regard to exactly what the payments are spent on. Plenty of long established settings might be able to run outstanding provision for funded hours without spending very much at all, and very few of us are in this business for entirely altruistic reasons. If we don't make a profit then why are we doing this?

I have no intention of offering funded provision because of all the reasons mentioned so far, the drop in funding from 2s to 3s and 4year olds, the complexity of funding - I gather that locally the rate varies according to the setting and the way in which we are offering the hours to the children... and I gather that membership of the network is still 'preferred'. Funding is also very much in arrears. Since I can fill my spaces currently without needing to add to my workload and stress levels by jumping through la hoops, I'll opt out. In years to come this might change if competition dictates, but we will see.

Edited to add that the local rate is £3.25 ph. Below the going rate.

[Simona]

There is another thread started a few months ago where this same discussion went on ....are LAs entitled to audit us?

I believed then as I do now that they do not have that right....yes they have a right to know the children who they fund...or in fact the DfE and DWP fund...are actually on our register and are attending the provision, they must ensure we are not topping up or charging for the 15 hrs but nowhere in the DfE guidance does it say they can audit us

The conditions about funding for LAs is changing next year...DfE will only fund 'by result' ...worth looking into it. especially in areas where the take up for 2 year olds is low
LAs have the 'right' to withdraw funding to a family if the parents do not use the facility they have been funded for...in addition where absence is persistent providers will have to return the funding.

So do not leave it too late if you find a child is frequently absent but you have received funding for that...call the LA and tell them

Maybe this story is the reason for their actions...extreme I know but it may have prompted the LAs into action.
Nursery manager jailed for fraud | Nursery World

E Truss announced in Dec 2013 that the average rate for funding should be £ 5.09...as we know LAs give us what they like on a formula devised by them... and are not passing the full funding to the frontline as Truss envisaged....in fact some LAs who were paying more than £5.09 actually reduced their funding following her announcement

Other LAs, like mine, pay £6.20 for 2 year olds then drop to £3.50 for 3/4...hence the reason why many cms are not taking it up ....
In some LAs the funding is more than the local fees....sustainability is a big issue for cms as is the fact that LAs are still imposing additional conditions on cms but....instead of challenging them many Cms are actually still jumping through hoops to meet them

In the effort to fight against agencies we seem to have put this issue on the back burner...this is much more important for independent cms than agencies....

The result of so many cms not accessing funding is that Truss will now divert 2 year olds in schools...assuming they will want to take them...at what cost to cms?

[bunyip]

I agree. What's more, I think the problem goes further than just the issue of audits.

There seems to be an attitude that LAs can simply make it up as they go along. What's more worrying is the evidential willingness of DOs (including pacey employees) to passively collude in this practice.

eg #1. A local CM friend has been told by her (pacey) DO that she cannot claim funding for her DS's child's attendance. The CM asked to see the rules which prevented this, only to be told, "it isn't written down anywhere - you just can't". What the....

eg #2. I have put a few lines in my policies/contracts/Ts&Cs to cover myself in some possible circumstances. So I say parents will be expected to pay if the LA fails to pay me due to the LA going bankrupt (which is not that uncommon) or if the LA refuses to pay cos parents have over-claimed the 15 hours entitlement across multiple settings, etc, etc. I also reserve the right to give notice to a funded client who shows a pattern of excessive or unreasonable absence, so as to free up the place for someone who will use the space more fully and responsibly. I believe this protects my income (we get paid nothing if the child is absent for whatever reason) and is within the ethos of the funding scheme (why should a child take up a funded place if mum decides she'll take them off to their nan's or to Alton Towers for the day at the drop of a hat?) The same (pacey) DO says I cannot do this. I ask, what rules am I breaking? I'm not making additional charges, simply protecting myself against things that would otherwise mean I lose money due to someone else's negligence or fraudulent action. Again, DO's answer is "you just can't". When I protest, she says "we have to work closely with the LA and can't afford to go rocking the boat." Interestingly, when I call the pacey legal team, they say I'm perfectly entitled to add such reasonable Ts&Cs so long as they do not directly contravene the LA's written rules for funding. So pacey legal says one thing, and pacey DO says the opposite: go figure.

Locally, we've witnessed another 'unintended consequence' of the disparity between 2yo and 3-4 yo funding rates. Nurseries have been actively seeking to take on more of the lucrative 2yo's whilst off-loading 3&4yo's to make space. The more subtle approaches have seen nurseries renewing all their resources for the younger ones, whilst the older ones continue with the tatty old stuff. At least one has swapped over the way it uses its rooms: so the 3-4's now have a small room (inevitably cluttered with climbers, slides, and other large equipment) and the 1-2's have a much bigger room. Of course, this "restructuring" meant they could take on more 2yo's and "forced" them to give notice to parents of some older (less profitable) children due to space requirements.

I feel we need to ask the obvious: are LAs looking into this sort of behaviour as closely as they're looking into CMs' receipt books?

[Mouse]

We have a nursery that has specifically opened up to take funded 2year olds. They received a huge grant to do it. It is in a 'deprived' area where there is a much larger than average number of families qualifying for funding. The rate for 2 year olds is about £5.50 an hour, dropping to £3.50 for 3 and 4 year olds.

The LA is heavily endorsing this nursery because of the huge number of children they can take on. Quality of care doesn't seem to matter particularly, it's the numbers that are important.

So we have a lovely, newly refurbished provision, jammed full of 2 year olds who will all be kicked out when they turn 3, with not enough places anywhere for them to move on to

[bunyip]

We have a nursery that has specifically opened up to take funded 2year olds. They received a huge grant to do it. It is in a 'deprived' area where there is a much larger than average number of families qualifying for funding. The rate for 2 year olds is about £5.50 an hour, dropping to £3.50 for 3 and 4 year olds.

The LA is heavily endorsing this nursery because of the huge number of children they can take on. Quality of care doesn't seem to matter particularly, it's the numbers that are important.

So we have a lovely, newly refurbished provision, jammed full of 2 year olds who will all be kicked out when they turn 3, with not enough places anywhere for them to move on to

And the LA will naturally be held up as a shining example for meeting its targets.

[Mouse]

And the LA will naturally be held up as a shining example for meeting its targets.

Exactly

The needs of the children come very low down on the list of priorities. Another 2 nursery settings have recently been graded inadequate, but because they have a lot of funded 2 year olds in them the LA is doing all it can to keep them open. Quality child care seems to be a thing of the past.