Single Formula Funding

[Guest]

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

[Panders]

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.

[blondie]

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 .

[Guest]

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.

[Deb]

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.

[anju]

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!)

[Guest]

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

[SueJ]

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.

[sunnyday]

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!

[Guest]

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!

[Panders]

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.

[Guest]

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!

[lynned55]

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

Edited September 14, 2009 by lynned55

[SueJ]

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!!!!

[lynned55]

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.

[SueJ]

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

[Guest]

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

[Mouseketeer]

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 ?

[Guest]

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

[Panders]

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!

[SueJ]

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.

[angela41]

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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[angela41]

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??

 

[HappyMaz]

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

[Mouseketeer]

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.

[lynned55]

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.

[Guest]

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

[Mouseketeer]

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