Funding Discussion

What are peoples thoughts on how they're going to offer future funding?

I only offered it to help out a family I already had in my care access their entitlement to reduce their bill, so wasn't planning on 'going forward' with it once LO started school anyway, but with the dire way the government has handled the whole process of funding plus the restrictions on how it's to be delivered, I can't see how it benefits any provider :panic:

I think as well, providers are forgetting that it is the LA's responsibility to 'make good' on the governments promise, not the providers. If the LA's terms and conditions don't suit the provision, then the provider is quite entitled to say, nope, not offering it.
Working parents (30 hours) can still access the many other forms of financial support - childcare credits, vouchers etc to pay for their childcare requirements, or am I missing something?

I'm lucky in that the funding initially is just slightly over my normal hourly rate, but, my rate isn't fixed till 2020, so if the amount stays the same (and it's possible it won't) then a year from now it'd be less and I refuse to work the hours I work for less money than I'm worth.
(No, I don't do sibling discounts either :laughing:)

I've only ever done funding for children who are already in my care when they turn 3 and I plan to do the same with the 30 hours.

As I've known the parents well I've always explained to them how the funding works, ie, how the LA don't pay me enough to cover the amount I charge. None of them had ever realised I'd be losing out and were usually horrified at how low the funding rate was. Once the child qualified for funding I worked out figures and told them what I would charge. Sometimes I did all their hours funded, but charged for food. Other times I limited their funded hours so charged the extra hours at a higher rate. Parents always saved a lot still so we're happy to pay for food or additional hours.

I won't have any funded children now until next January and they'll be my first on the 30 hours. Parents still haven't decided if they'll have all 30 hours with me or split it with another setting. Either way the rate the LA is paying is 15p less than my hourly rate so on 15 hours I'd lose £2.25 a week or £4.50 on 30 hours. I can easily make that up with a charge for food so I'm not too concerned.

Our LA is obviously in a panic about finding enough spaces for qualifying children. We keep being sent questionnaires asking what our plans are - I keep filling them in saying I don't know yet. It's going to be interesting to see what happens in September.

I have never registered for giving it and don't intend to if I can avoid. The rate is lower so would need to add somewhere and children in my village all go to village nursery by 2.5yrs. All children have been part time and it just would mean more training, paperwork etc for the sake of it.
If it means my mindees are all under the age of funding or schoolies is fine by me.

We have to charge for extras - I can't afford £1 an hour reduction on fees :(

I am worried about the 30 hours - there are too many variables especially if a child doesn't come holidays or extra hours / days or takes time off and the La want the money back or or or ...

I am still in the wait and see list and I've written guidance to help colleagues :D

My LA are offering 90p an hour less than my current rate. I'm concerned. I do take the 15 hour funding but have made up the difference with charging the extra on the remaining hours that the children attend. Parents all aware about the price increase after their child's 3rd birthday. I also share all my funded children with my local preschool so the maximum funded hours I take at the moment for 1 child is 8 hours which is easy to make up the 'loss'. However 30 hours is something else. I would be working for almost £10 a day less. Very hard to decide what to do. Thinking shall I choose to have younger children but then continually loose them the term after their 3rd birthday? I would really miss them and have to continually advertise plus I may not attract business if word gets about that in 16 months their child will have to leave etc.

It all just doesn't sit easy with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallyH

My LA are offering 90p an hour less than my current rate. I'm concerned. I do take the 15 hour funding but have made up the difference with charging the extra on the remaining hours that the children attend. Parents all aware about the price increase after their child's 3rd birthday. I also share all my funded children with my local preschool so the maximum funded hours I take at the moment for 1 child is 8 hours which is easy to make up the 'loss'. However 30 hours is something else. I would be working for almost £10 a day less. Very hard to decide what to do. Thinking shall I choose to have younger children but then continually loose them the term after their 3rd birthday? I would really miss them and have to continually advertise plus I may not attract business if word gets about that in 16 months their child will have to leave etc.

It all just doesn't sit easy with me.

---

I'm not offering the 30 hours.
I will continue to offer up to 15 hours but only for children who are already with me, AND do more hours than they use funding for. I talk to each family and explain about the difference between the funding and my hourly rate. I then work out session fees for the rest of their hours.
I only offer term time 'funded' ( or as I call it 'subsidised' ) sessions.

I wish to stay as independent as possible, over the years Iv seen many schemes come and go and the mess minders have been left in often ending with them giving up.
Although I totally agree with our numbers being limited I do not think also limiting our earnings in this way is right.
I believe children deserve better and I cannot provide the service my parents want and work in the way I want being paid such a low rate.
Unfortunately although being advertised as free I see the sector and the children themselves bearing the outcome of this scheme.

So far, like others I have always managed to 'make up ' my daily rate by charging for extra hours at the beginning and end of the day, out of funded hours, my parents have felt it is worthwhile to keep them with me and so have paid the extra.
The 30 hour funding would not work for me as I only work max 3 days a week so there is no opportunity, apart from say food, that I could make up to cover my current daily rate.
This is one of the reasons I have decided to retire completely in the summer. I want to start my new life in moving to a more scenic area of the country but I love my current two, so I may have been tempted to stay until they start school. But it's not worth the effort if I am not making a reasonable profit.
Their parents will want to access the funding though...so it is convenient for me to end and give them time to find someone new before it all comes in. I suspect grandparents/ reduced working hours/ private nursery will be their route. Difficult conversations ahead!

The question that keeps coming into my mind is why? Why should parents get 30 hours of subsidised childcare?

It became more relevant when I was watching the news tonight and they were talking about the lack of funding for schools, hospitals, social care etc. All I could think was why is the government throwing all this money at working parents when there are other areas that desperately need better funding? Surely having children is a choice. Growing old, being disabled or developing dementia isn't, yet the parents get an increase in funding while the others are having their care cut.

What is the 30 hours going to achieve? Many parents will be able to use 30 hours childcare even if they only work 16 hours. How can that be good use of tax payers money? And what about the children from poorer families. Many are already classed as disadvantaged and now they're only going to have half the amount of education that other children will get.

It really doesn't make sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouse

The question that keeps coming into my mind is why? Why should parents get 30 hours of subsidised childcare?

It became more relevant when I was watching the news tonight and they were talking about the lack of funding for schools, hospitals, social care etc. All I could think was why is the government throwing all this money at working parents when there are other areas that desperately need better funding? Surely having children is a choice. Growing old, being disabled or developing dementia isn't, yet the parents get an increase in funding while the others are having their care cut.

What is the 30 hours going to achieve? Many parents will be able to use 30 hours childcare even if they only work 16 hours. How can that be good use of tax payers money? And what about the children from poorer families. Many are already classed as disadvantaged and now they're only going to have half the amount of education that other children will get.

It really doesn't make sense to me.

---

that is exactly what I was thinking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouse

The question that keeps coming into my mind is why? Why should parents get 30 hours of subsidised childcare?

It became more relevant when I was watching the news tonight and they were talking about the lack of funding for schools, hospitals, social care etc. All I could think was why is the government throwing all this money at working parents when there are other areas that desperately need better funding? Surely having children is a choice. Growing old, being disabled or developing dementia isn't, yet the parents get an increase in funding while the others are having their care cut.

What is the 30 hours going to achieve? Many parents will be able to use 30 hours childcare even if they only work 16 hours. How can that be good use of tax payers money? And what about the children from poorer families. Many are already classed as disadvantaged and now they're only going to have half the amount of education that other children will get.

It really doesn't make sense to me.

---

Yep! It'll be hard for them to make a U-turn once started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiddleywinks

What are peoples thoughts on how they're going to offer future funding?

I only offered it to help out a family I already had in my care access their entitlement to reduce their bill, so wasn't planning on 'going forward' with it once LO started school anyway, but with the dire way the government has handled the whole process of funding plus the restrictions on how it's to be delivered, I can't see how it benefits any provider :panic:

I think as well, providers are forgetting that it is the LA's responsibility to 'make good' on the governments promise, not the providers. If the LA's terms and conditions don't suit the provision, then the provider is quite entitled to say, nope, not offering it.
Working parents (30 hours) can still access the many other forms of financial support - childcare credits, vouchers etc to pay for their childcare requirements, or am I missing something?

I'm lucky in that the funding initially is just slightly over my normal hourly rate, but, my rate isn't fixed till 2020, so if the amount stays the same (and it's possible it won't) then a year from now it'd be less and I refuse to work the hours I work for less money than I'm worth.
(No, I don't do sibling discounts either :laughing:)

---

The funding is £1 less than my usual rate but my LA have said I can charge an extra charge for food, outings, etc. I'm only considering it because one of my existing families has asked and I would like to help if I can. They are happy to pay an extra charge. Now we have the headache of working out which hours I will do and which preschool will do. Clearly they won't be offering funding for more than 15 hours and even then it's not the hours the family wants.

I think it's crazy that 30 hours funding is happening. Most of the families around here don't need it as they've been paying childcare since they went back after maternity leave.

I'm so glad you said all of that Mouse - I was beginning to think that I must be selfish by thinking it, but now I know I'm not alone.

Also, it seems to me that the 'stay at home mother/father' is being discouraged and will eventually become a thing of the past, which I think will be a very sad thing for society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maza

I'm so glad you said all of that Mouse - I was beginning to think that I must be selfish by thinking it, but now I know I'm not alone.

Also, it seems to me that the 'stay at home mother/father' is being discouraged and will eventually become a thing of the past, which I think will be a very sad thing for society.

---

It's a badly thought out vote winner. They promised it so now have to deliver I don't think they realised that providers would actually refuse to offer the places.

Also I think someone has realised if they give 30 hours to people working 16 hours it will reduce the tax credit bill and hopefully have a knock on affect to people working more hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FloraDora

So far, like others I have always managed to 'make up ' my daily rate by charging for extra hours at the beginning and end of the day, out of funded hours, my parents have felt it is worthwhile to keep them with me and so have paid the extra.
The 30 hour funding would not work for me as I only work max 3 days a week so there is no opportunity, apart from say food, that I could make up to cover my current daily rate.
This is one of the reasons I have decided to retire completely in the summer. I want to start my new life in moving to a more scenic area of the country but I love my current two, so I may have been tempted to stay until they start school. But it's not worth the effort if I am not making a reasonable profit.
Their parents will want to access the funding though...so it is convenient for me to end and give them time to find someone new before it all comes in. I suspect grandparents/ reduced working hours/ private nursery will be their route. Difficult conversations ahead!

---

Sorry to hear that are retiring early because of this funding farce - I'm thinking of cutting down to 3 days from September but am lucky that our LA do pay more or less my hourly rate. I would love to retire now but have promised to see my current 2 year olds through to school, so am probably working until Sept 2019 unless they all decide to go to Nursery for their 30 hours - I am not taking on any more children now. We hope to travel the UK & Europe in our motorhome and maybe let out our house to give us an income.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouse

The question that keeps coming into my mind is why? Why should parents get 30 hours of subsidised childcare?

It became more relevant when I was watching the news tonight and they were talking about the lack of funding for schools, hospitals, social care etc. All I could think was why is the government throwing all this money at working parents when there are other areas that desperately need better funding? Surely having children is a choice. Growing old, being disabled or developing dementia isn't, yet the parents get an increase in funding while the others are having their care cut.

What is the 30 hours going to achieve? Many parents will be able to use 30 hours childcare even if they only work 16 hours. How can that be good use of tax payers money? And what about the children from poorer families. Many are already classed as disadvantaged and now they're only going to have half the amount of education that other children will get.

It really doesn't make sense to me.

---

I agree if people chose to have children they should expect to pay for them - when I had my children all I got was £7 a week child benefit and I saved it up to buy them Clarks shoes.

I will be receiving £1.54 less than my hourly rate, I am already one of the cheapest in my area and haven't put my prices up in an awfully long time. The 30 hours has me really worried and also feeling quite resentful of the whole thing. Why should I subsidise parents Childcare out of my own pocket? It's ludicrous! What happens when childcare providers close because they cannot financially sustain the business?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halor

I will be receiving £1.54 less than my hourly rate, I am already one of the cheapest in my area and haven't put my prices up in an awfully long time. The 30 hours has me really worried and also feeling quite resentful of the whole thing. Why should I subsidise parents Childcare out of my own pocket? It's ludicrous! What happens when childcare providers close because they cannot financially sustain the business?

---

Gosh that's a lot. I also feel I'm being forced into a corner. My preschool is expanding to increase their spaces to 40 a session to cope with demand and they will be expanding their day 7.30-6pm so they can offer the full 30 hours. How can I compete with that? I'm trying to find out what the local nurseries are planning to do but everyone is keeping very quiet.