Hello,

Currently our local authority are consulting providers on Single Formula Funding, we have been asked to comment on funding that offers a base rate and then ‘supplements’ for quality, deprivation and flexibility.

One of the issues is that the base rate varies according to the number of funded children at each setting, under the new proposals , settings who offer a small number of NEG funded places will receive a much higher hourly rate per child than settings offering more NEG places.

The rates vary from £4.43 per hour for 8 funded children and decrease on a sliding scale to £3.38per hour for those settings offering up to 65 funded places. Therefore the more funded places you offer, the less per head you receive, it is not based on the registered number of children attending, just the past 2 years early years census of NEG uptake.

Therefore some providers will receive less funding than in the past should this way of calculating funding be adopted.

It affects all settings, although the base rates are different for PVI, nursery schools, and nursery classes to reflect their different costs.

Does anyone else have this system and are providers in your area going to receive different amounts according to what kind of setting they are?
Julie

Haven't heard any more than they are "consulting" on the formula funding. As per usual I suspect we will hear only when decisions have been made and it is too late to do anything about it. As only certain individuals are not being consulted we must hope that those who are being asked remember their responsibilities in acting for all of us.

we have different rates of funding which take into account deprivation,flexibility and quality -
however we are based in a school and share a room with an after school club so cant be flexible regarding times etc
we also take in some children from areas that are deemed to be deprived but not enough to change our funding rate.however we also have children who are deemed not to be in a deprived area although their circumstances would show that they are deprived but we get no extra funding for these children
this means that we are on the basic rate(sorry cant remember what it is) and do not get any extra "top ups" which i feel is very unfair.
we were not consulted on this just received a letter then a meeting telling us .

I believe that the premium payments based on the three factors you mention are going to be applied across the country on guidance from central government. I am not sure how I feel about them as we cannot for example do anything about the deprivation level of the area we live in but might actually be accepting children with additional needs and family circumstances which require more intense support. That is an issue, I know, whenever funding is discussed which comes from central government, hence different areas have different funded rates even now.

What confuses/worries me more is the idea that settings will get a different amount based on previous uptake of NEF places. This seems to encourage some settings to limit the number of funded places they offer, when I though the whole push was that the powers that be wanted a 100% uptake on the funded entitlement. I will be interested to hear if this is being repeated across the country.

Hi

In our county we are being consulted on this and I am going to a meeting shortly. We will have a basic rate which will be 90% of the NEG plus a percentage according to deprivation, quality and sustainability. It looks like there will be winners and losers.

our base rate will vary between PVI and maintained settings then there will be supplements for deprivation and quality but not for flexibility although there will be a one-off grant for flexibility at the start of the scheme.

I have not heard about different base rates for people offering less funded places but there is a one-off proposed for smaller providers (not those offering less funded places - this would be different) as their costs per head are higher due to economies of scale.

I agree, that will encourage people to offer fewer free places and more funded by parents (if they can afford it!)

Still not heard anything about how it is going to be worked out. Day care network meetings have been cancelled????? and nothing now till Oct 09. I have noticed our head count dates have changed, much earlier than usual. I have read about surplus for the other things but nothing discussed yet. I will post back in October. No doubt everything will have been decided anyway and we will just be told what is happening

What a coincidence - meeting I was going to attend this week about SFF has also been re-organised for October!!!

Just a general query at the moment though if 12.5 hours/15 hours is meant to be free at source and SSF is going to mean different rates for different settings with added percentages here and there any clues on costing out fees?

Is an hourly rate going to be the best way forward?

I know that a lot of settings already do this but most sessional groups tend to price for the session.

Hi Sue - I have just introduced this.......hmmm........for once I was thinking ahead!

We are sessional and thinking of moving to an hourly rate for fee payers, especially as we will be possibly extending our hours slightly. I don't know if it will be better or just more tricky for me to calculate!

i was a "sessional" pre-school, we are still only open 12.50 hours per week - to the children that is - I have never had any problems calculating hours it's just as simple.

There is only one draw back, if you have children attending an hourly fee setting and a sessional calculated setting, you need to talk to each other to make sure you don't exeed the correct amount of hours allowed.

On two occasions I have left this to parents to tell the other setting and they have not done so or not been able to explain things and between us and the other setting we went over by an hour or so. Our county would not pay either setting until the end of the term as their computer system could not cope with it!! We were lucky that on each occasion it was only one child, but if there were two or three children - that would have been a huge amount of money for us to have to wait for.

Thanks for that Panders - I wouldn't have thought of that although our LA ask for the headcount to be completed in hours so I might be reminded that way. Calculating hourly rates might be easy for you but I can ever find the blinking calculator!

We have today just been sent a 'consultation' form to complete for our borough. I've only skimmed it but so far they are suggesting a 'basic' hourly rate for all. Off the top of my head, and it is only a rough calculation, the suggested figure appears to be around 7p an hour less than we are paid now. Unfortunately in real terms for groups like us that are already doing 3 hours and charging for the additional 30 minutes it will mean around 30 pence per session, per child less, they are offering suggested additional amounts for settings with a L4/5 or 6 Leader. Additional funding for those with children living in areas of deprivation, this will be decided by postcode of child. From what I have seen I am not very happy with it but I have only roughly read it and it is only a 'consultation' I don’t like the deprivation being decided by postcode or the qualification thing either. There seems to be no account of QA schemes or the like. There is also some mention in there of taking into account the mainstream schools having to employ a head teacher and factoring in PPA time for teachers but not for PVI sector as we obviously have to do this in our own time!! Anyway, will read it fully and let you know

This is all going to be a nightmare isn't it - if you charge hourly and you get / don't get different premiums or god forbid you lose a premium if you got it your rates are going to be all over the place and do these premiums mean different rates for different children depending on deprivation?

How are you then meant to calcuate for hours over and above funding - I so wish i'd done a phd in maths, applied maths, sums, calculus, trigonometry etc. etc. etc. at this rate I may even end up using log tables and a slide rule again....................RANT RANT RANT

V. interesting about maintained settings additional factors - it's bad enough that we can't have inset days within the funded year as it is.

Must stop now getting overly wound up!!!!

Ooh Sue, you sound just like myself and my deputy this morning!! I've looked at it a bit more properly now and iby being paid just the base rate it is going to cost us 28 pence per child per morning, at current rates, bearing in mind our fees would normally rise next year then in real terms it will be more. I want to know how they can justify giving us less then we get now.

Somehow i think this is going to be a very odd SINGLE funding formula - more like a cooking of the books - if maintained are no longer going to be funded on number of available places but "bums on seats" basis like we are then there should be more money in the kitty - Ho hum!

We are yet to see any kind of consulation document.

My setting had the LA consultant accountant in to "do the math" - funny outcome really their math came to exactly the EEF amount - my math didn't - but then I had included a - hold your breath- modest profit to ensure sustainability.

apparently I didn't need this and without the books balanced!

I so need to stop being so cynical

Thank -you all for your comments, my concern is that most nurseries / pre-schools seem to lose money under the new formula, hopefully our consultation meetings with our local authority will clarify things a bit more.

I am also going to post a new thread about 2 year old funding which is causing concern for some of our local providers to see if any of you have the same issues and what you are doing to address them.

Thanks again

Julie

I went to our consultation meeting last night..............but you kinda get the impression its already set in stone, ours will equate to 3.20 per hr basic, and then a bit extra for quality (dependent on EYFS audit) and sustainability, but as children become entitled to more hrs er wk the actual number on register goes down as less children take up more hours, making it harder to meet the sustinability target numbers, though these were a very small % extra, we were advised to charge for snack to make up short falls ...........gold platted banana anyone ?

Ive just filled ours in and ticked the NO box in many places - we are going to be down by 50 per child per session!!
We are a new setting that has only been open a year we have worked so hard to get an outstanding in all areas ofsted however we do not have a graduate leader and at the mo have dedicated fantastic staff who are about to start their level 3 so no extra funding there! I think it is just another way of getting money into surestart ventures and trying to finish off village pre schools

Well of course that is possibly the motive. We have to think about it though, lots of PVI's moaned that the schools had better funding than they did and lobbied for a "level playing field" - in which case, all things would need to be level not just funding, but qualifications etc...... It was the same with the Desirable Learning Outcomes - pre-schools used to adapt what was essentially a curriculum for schools - and moaned there was nothing for under 5's - so in came the original Foundation Stage and eventually Birth to Three Matters, then we moaned that it was two documents, so along came the EYFS - nobody moans about that do they???

Not all the people can be kept pleased all of the time. It is a great shame that everything gets tweaked and messed with, and never in the way we feel it should be.

The single funding formula will certainly be a case in point when not all the people will be winners.

As a movement pre-schools and nurseries wanted to be respected more for what they did with young children to be recognised for how important the early years were - perhaps we weren't really ready for the Government's "help" in this - now they are taking over every aspect of running groups, I just feel I no longer really own my own group, I'm a government employee now and quite frankly the pay and conditions stink!

I can't wait to ask whether this funding formula includes payment for statutory holiday pay - now a pro rata of 5.6 weeks - within the 38 weeks that funding money is paid for - if you add that in the actual hourly rate is reduced again me thinks.

This is all a bit of a farce really, isn't it?

There is no way that sessional PVI settings can survive for much longer and, at a recent meeting of our LA I was told that to my face! What I don't understand is how a LA can meet it's commitment for nursery places without us, especially in a rural county like ours.

It's interesting you were told that LJW. I keep getting told they want to keep a variety of types of provider for parental choice, but my gut feeling is that that is not the case really. Wouldn't it be easier for the powers that be if we were all the same and all looked the same when they came in, etc?? We are one of the only pre-school playgroups left in our area of the authority I believe but I do feel we are being pushed out all the time. We will have to extend our hours to survive with SFF despite our reputation, etc as otherwise we will not be able to afford to operate.

The comments about funding are extremely dissapointing - ihave just obtained a large start up grant from my Council for a new Pre school.
We are about to embark on intensive setting up ready for opening after 1/2 term.
Are you really advsing that I shouldn't bother??

What stage is your Local Authority at with regard to the single funding formula and the flexible 15-hour entitlement? If I were about to open I would want to reassure myself that the hourly fees will be covered by the amount of funding being offered from September. I'm not sure how you'd go about getting that information though - if it isn't generally known they won't want to divulge it, I'm sure.

We have been invited to attend a briefing session in early November where our Local Authority will outline what is proposed for our Borough, so we'll know all about it. I'm not feeling confident, but I am happy to be proved wrong!

Maz

we were told ours would be a basic rate of 3.20 per hour, with a very tiny % available for deprevity, sustainability & quiality, and our max hours would be 6.5hrs over min of 3 days, extra fees could be gained from charging for snacks and lunch club, thats dorset does anyone else know their basics yet ? our loss going on 90% of previous year was £1400.

We've been told that our basic will be 3.40p per hour. 7 pence an hour less then now. Of course there is extra coming for quality, deprivation & some admin. But as too how much extra no idea. We have a 'consultation' evening later this month but I really am not holding out much hope, I think this whole consultation thing is a farce and LA's have decided already.

Our meetings are both tomorrow for SFF. I am not holding my breath.

ours is 36p an hour less ! the amounts for quality (0.64%) & sustainability (1.36%)

Went to a meeting last week - we are sessional - share/rent facilities so can't be flexible, no deprivation criteria, and quality is in the form of QTS or EYPS which we do not have (by the way EYPS is not recognised as high financially in our area as QTS - so EYPS settings on a lesser amount.)
Based on a quick calculation from the info we were given on the night, the base rate will be less than what we have now (20p per child per hour), and as it is out of our control to provide the 'incentives' to top up the funding we shall be running at approx £1,500 less per year!
Also what we want to know is:-

- Why deprivation is classed as an incentive? Surely practitioners give the same amount of care and attention to every child
regardless of where they come from - and what exactly constitutes deprivation? Surely this is subjective?
- Why EYPS staff are worth less than QTS? so why push for EYPS in every setting?
- Is there any transitional or buffer funding for groups which through no fault of theirs cannot provide the 'incentives'?

What is the hidden agenda?

Anybody going to get more..........anybody

I agree - we sent back our questionairre back saying the same surely they are discriminating against children who do not live in a deprived area - we have fantastic staff who have helped us to achieve an outstanding in all areas after only being open a year - but do they take that into consideration - I think not

i am in gloucestershire nothing has been said yet awaiting letter. it will be interesting.

This has been my points against ihe proposals!! Deprivtion in our area is being decided by the settings postcode, nothing to do with where the child lives or personal circumstances. These groups in a deprived area are getting an extra 20 pence per hour per child. Ridiculous situation as a group that only got satisfactory in their last ofsted will now get more funding per child then a group that got outstanding, crazy. When I complained I was told it was a goverment decision re the deprivation thing and out of LA's hands? When NEG first started (going back to the voucher system) deprivation was high on the list of those parents that got it as well as a number of other criteria, I complained then that there was no equal opps and here we are again, as someone has already said surely we are all giving the same care and attention, Just because your setting is on one side of the road it is deemed to be more worthy for extra money- not exactly helping anyone who really needs it.
I am now waiting to see how they can justify giving us less money per hour then we get at present but tell us we have to open for longer?? It does make me wonder if there is some sort of hidden agenda, to get rid of most of the pvi settings???

We're already in our 15 hours, limited flexibility, with the single funding formula in final stages of consultation and due to be implemented in April. We've moved to hourly rates this year and it has been fine. Last year we were concerned - having just moved and taken on a £150K loan - that if they introduced the proposed forumula we would go bust. We shouted quite loudly and they went back to the drawing board (because lots of settings shouted), and set up a reference group to which we sent a committee member who ended up representing the voluntary sector. He has managed to get an additional differentiation - don't know if it is a premium as such - to recognise the vast differences in preschool rent/building costs (from peppercorn to a mega-loan like ours). Ours is to be adjusted for flexibility, possibily quality (not sure ...), possibly qualifications (I am very concerned that if the Graduate Premium Fund dries up that the NEF scheme is going to have to pick that up) and possibly deprivation - though as others have said, I think the postcode lottery is not a good scheme. Waiting to see the final scheme to see how much we lose out in the end ...

They are also keeping a payment for the heads of maintained nurseries. In the latest consultation I pointed out that we can't afford to pay for both managerial and administrative hours (taking into account all the best-practice advice on management meaning lots more actually managing, reviewing, mentoring, assessing, appraising, etc, and the extra work involved in flexibility), and we have an EYP who is not paid as much as a NQT even though in the qualifications guidance they are on a par, and suggested that they keep some of that money to help us pay for our manager! We shall see ... It's not really very 'single', this funding formula.

Also, I noticed that someone mentioned not being able to pay for inset days. We queried this with the NEF team this year and they said that NEF is paid on a weekly basis and 'level playing field' and all, we could take the 5 training days out of the year that the maintained sector has. I hope the advice was right because we have booked 5 days off.

we have been given our rate that will be effective from april 2010 which is actually slightly more than we have now it will be £3.69 an hour which includes 21p for area of deprivation and 21p is a transitional rate. There will also be supplements for flexibility but we don't know how much yet but have been told it will be an additional 5-25% depending on how flexible our sessions are. We are in Cambridgeshire and are currentlly paid £3.38 per hour.

Does anybody know what the funding rate will be for Birmingham, not deprived area.

We were told we would not be receiving any less than we get now. I have to say at the moment it is being done in a fair and transparent manner with all sectors at the meetings (so it should) . I do feel it is the maintained sector most worried but why fund empty places?????. There will be supplements to settings for SEN, deprivation and flexibility but it will not be same for everyone as settings have different direct/indirect costs. Our next meeting is next week. We will not be told officially till next year what we will all receive.

The deprivd rate in our area is based on the child's post code not the settings

i am also in Gloucestershire - had a invitation to the consulation event -dates are 3rd,5th,10th,12th nov in either chelt or barnwood.
it looks like im going to have to re-read this thread and make some notes to take, as its all sounding rather confusing to me !
had you had yours yet ?

I've just been invited to join our LA working group on the SFF (surprise, surprise they want my opinion - they were getting it anyway!) and I've come back on this thread to remind myself about what I want to ensure I mention. So far I've got:
- making sure EYPS and QTS are classed as equivalents when determining quality/leadership
- allowing PVI settings INSET days if the maintained sector get to have them still

Can you think from your exprience/reading/thinking of anything else I must bring up?

Thanks

You must point out that the PVI sector must have an element of profit based into the rate. We do not make any money from the younger ages or our prices would be off the scale.

Thanks. I will add that to my list. Feel like I had loads of things I wanted to raise but as soon as the invite arrived they went straight out of my head!

http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/...s/login/946825/

I dont know the answer to that Sheila but this might be an interesting read, its the Early Years Single Funding Formula: Consultation document, closing date Dec. 11th.
Birmingham

Marion - thanks for the link. I have looked on the Early Education website but I can't seem to find the download of the kit. You don't happen to be able to see it do you?

went to our area meeting last night......and there was outrage from many attendees, particularly when it was announced that childminders who are accredited will get an increase in funding of 120% over other groups etc. Now, I can understand we all need to have more money coming in, but the chap giving our presentation smiled at us and said 'well, it's to reflect their committment, training and professionalism'! he barely got out with his life! He also told us that traditionally, childminders are 'vastly underpaid'..................aren't we all?? and don't the rest of us have the necessary 'committment, professionalism and training'?? Several of us suggested that we should, perhaps, take up childminding instead and he....and one of the other bods said, 'well of course, they all come to you eventually, parents want them in settings just before they go to school, don't they?'

one other thing that cropped up: parents who live in 'designated' 'deprived areas' will not be told that their child gets extra funding, 'to spare them embarrassment'........but settings WILL be told which children get it.Is that ethical? can WE be told, if parents aren't?? would it be better to simply say we have been given some extra funding this time, for whatever reason, since surely, we treat all children the same?

We have been called to a meeting this afternoon regarding the future of future funding. SFF, Capital, Graduate Leader Fund, and NEG and how it links with outcomes. Wish me luck. I am still seething after the guardian article yesterday. I have 32 staff and 200 children and parents/carers to worry about. It is about creating a level playing field in all sectors so no child is at disadvantage. But I think pay still is an important issue. If we provide the same service with highly qualified staff we should be in a position to pay well above minimum wage for the future of the country.

local paper reported out two CC which take children are in discussions and consultation with parents and may end up closing... seems funding is no longer sufficient to cover the costs.

Both these were new builds for purpose, and I do wonder if they will both survive. One replaced a very good preschool and employed the staff at an improved wage..

I did often wonder how long the funding would be there to subsidise these settings, its now catching up with them..

preschool I left is better off all round from this.. location has a lot to do with that in an area where we always have a lot of parents and children who need additional support.


Inge