Funding consultation

[Mouseketeer]

2 yr old leader (as they forced them on us)

deputy DSO (now we need one)

named first aider.

Enco (not that i have one)

cleaner (if you have one or extra staff hours for that)

gardener (someone has to do it)

 

good idea though

Edited June 28, 2015 by Mouseketeer

[SueJ]

Forgot the named First Aider - and with the new changes there will have to be more first aiders too so more supplements and training costs there

Not sure we have to have an ENCO now - but if we do then that'll be another supplement

Supplements for the deputies too - BRILLIANT!

Also need to build in costs for the annual funding audit - that too takes someone out of the ratios whilst the LA looks to see if we've been cooking the books

Supplement for person with EYPP responsibility?

 

Need to future proof the costs to by adding in the admin job that is going to come with policing which parents are working 8 hours, ensuring that they are either one or two adult households etc.when the 30 hours is upon us too

 

In a perverse way I am beginning to enjoy this :wacko: :wacko:

[lynned55]

I think I must be really thick, probably, or the heat has addled my brain, but cant think where to start.

Can I take my expenditure (from last years accounts) and divide by amount of childrens places?

How do I get the hourly rate?

Edited July 2, 2015 by lynned55

[Fredbear]

Not thick at all but that's what I did. Make sure you factor in any additional costs with current legislation and price increases. So things like First Aider training, Safeguarding, Sen training. Then any increases in rent, insurance, minimum wage (if applicable) and any additional printing and consumables.

[finleysmaid]

I think I must be really thick, probably, or the heat has addled my brain, but cant think where to start.

Can I take my expenditure (from last years accounts) and divide by amount of childrens places?

How do I get the hourly rate?

I personally would take only your funded children in to account . (so possibly a percentage of your total?) did you make a profit? if not then you need to work out what the cost would be in order to do so.

The issue is that all of us are subsidising places at the moment, either by fundraising/grants/upping costs for non funded hours reducing overheads (our wages levels!!!) etc etc there is such a huge gap between what we NEED to charge and what we are charging. The problem with that is that we have got so good at it that I think we have lost sight of the goal posts. If we do answer this consultation we MUST be realistic about the true costs of childcare ...lets face it the government have dug a hole for themselves and we will be the ones throwing them a life line AGAIN. They need PVI's to supply the places ...but we need to run a business, the two things do not really equate I fear :angry:

[Guest]

Thought this may help some of you - its something we developed for our providers to identify costs etc

 

 

MASTER COSTS SPREADSHEET - Private Day Nurseries.xls

 

[SueJ]

If we do answer this consultation we MUST be realistic about the true costs of childcare ...lets face it the government have dug a hole for themselves and we will be the ones throwing them a life line AGAIN. They need PVI's to supply the places ...but we need to run a business, the two things do not really equate I fear :angry:

 

Eloquently put finleysmaid

 

We must all complete this "consultation" no matter how "battle weary" we are and as you say it is not what we are currently charging - it is what the true costs are that should be put in our responses or we will end up getting unsustainable rates forever

[sunnyday]

 

Eloquently put finleysmaid

 

We must all complete this "consultation" no matter how "battle weary" we are and as you say it is not what we are currently charging - it is what the true costs are that should be put in our responses or we will end up getting unsustainable rates forever

Absolutely - this is our 'big chance'

[lynned55]

Totally agree. However and this was the reason for my comments above. I took my expenditure for last year divided it by the number of children we had over the year and then divided this figure by 38 (weeks we are open) and then by 15 hours, this then gave me a figure of £3.55p???????? Obviously doing something wrong there as that is 5p less then our funding.

But the number of children I divided by wasn't the number of funded children it was the amount we had in on roll in July 2014.

Another thought I had was surely we should be taking out (for those of us that have it) any fundraising or voluntary contributions we have.?

 

Thank you for the spreadsheet BobAdams. I think this will be quite useful

Edited July 4, 2015 by lynned55

[sunnyday]

 

Another thought I had was surely we should be taking out (for those of us that have it) any fundraising or voluntary contributions we have.?

 

 

Definitely!

[lsp]

 

Eloquently put finleysmaid

 

We must all complete this "consultation" no matter how "battle weary" we are and as you say it is not what we are currently charging - it is what the true costs are that should be put in our responses or we will end up getting unsustainable rates forever

 

I can see this whole process breaking down because of the range of replies that they will receive. I do not know how they can possible work out a reasonable and fair rate for everyone. There are so many variables thoughout the sector and the country. But yes, we must all reply to show the powers that be that not enough thought has gone into this. :angry:

 

 

I personally would take only your funded children in to account . (so possibly a percentage of your total?) did you make a profit? if not then you need to work out what the cost would be in order to do so.

 

But what about the groups and childminders who do not accept funding, hopefully they will be replying to show why they do not accept funding! So maybe we do need to include all children as this will not give a true picture. I have passed it to our treasurer.

 

Perhaps they should have given us a spreadsheet with the headings, for us to fill the figures in??

 

 

Some interesting figures being shared so far. I am just getting more and more confused - its too hot! :blink: Sorry if I am being a bit dim.

[SueJ]

Ok for what it's worth I am attaching a costings spreadsheet for a term time sessional setting. The best way to tackle this is is to use your maximum capacity figures - this model has 10 staff overall on the staff team working a range of hours over a week and 30 children per session.

 

The best place to start is on Page 2 of the spreadsheet Wages - Where I have put blue text the hourly rate and the number of hours can be input and this will calculate the wages bill including employer NICS and pensions (at the base rate) liabilities and holiday pay. (I have not included the small business employer NICS relief - if you are feeling generous knock 2K off somewhere e.g., profit). If you have less than 10 staff just put zero in the hourly rate and the number of hours to zero them out.

 

Ignore what your actual wages costs are - this consultation calls for the true cost so most of the staff are paid the "living wage" hourly rate.

 

If you are self employed choose whether to cost yourself as an employee or put in "proper" figures on the first page of the spreadsheet. Most sole traders on here earn less than the minimum wage if you actually took into account all the hours that are worked !! :wacko:

 

On the first page any of the blue text figures can be changed and you won't overwrite any of the formulae.

 

At the bottom of the first page put in the number of children per session that you have and the number of hours you are open each day and the formula will do the rest to produce an hourly rate.

 

Hope that helps !!

 

JITB Costs Matrix for consultation - fsf copy.xlsx

 

JITB Costs Matrix for consultation - fsf copy.xlsx

[sunnyday]

Many, many thanks dragon lady - when I finish watching the tennis (!!!) I will take a look :1b sounds really helpful :1b

[lynned55]

Thank you so much!! Although the other spreadsheet posted (thanks again) was helpful, as we are a term time preschool I think yours is far more suited to me. Thank you.

[lynned55]

Well according to my figures and salaries have been changed to reflect a living wage for all, our funding is underpaid by £2 per hour.

As we are classed as a London borough our living wage is £9.13 per hour. Only two of our 8 staff dont earn this but obviously it has a knock on effect- if their salary goes up then so does everyone elses. I also added an extra 30 minutes per week to working hours and additional two for me and one for my deputy to take into account the unpaid work that is done by us, me esp as we cannot afford an admin worker. This all bumped up our wages bill by quite a bit extra.

 

So we will see, cant imagine we're going to get an extra £2 per hour.

[SueJ]

Well according to my figures and salaries have been changed to reflect a living wage for all, our funding is underpaid by £2 per hour.

As we are classed as a London borough our living wage is £9.13 per hour. Only two of our 8 staff dont earn this but obviously it has a knock on effect- if their salary goes up then so does everyone elses. I also added an extra 30 minutes per week to working hours and additional two for me and one for my deputy to take into account the unpaid work that is done by us, me esp as we cannot afford an admin worker. This all bumped up our wages bill by quite a bit extra.

 

So we will see, cant imagine we're going to get an extra £2 per hour.

 

Glad that you have found it useful. You've hit the nail on the head in terms of incremental increases for other staff if wages rise across the board for those with less responsibility bumping up the wages bill. I hope you've also added supplements for extra responsibilities to those base rates - I believe that school staff have supplements for their extra responsibilities so it would only be logical for early years workers to "expect" the same under the new funding regime.

 

However it is tempting to do a Paddy Ashdown and make pronouncements about eating hats if you get a £2 per hour funding increase

 

When I run my figures through the calculations we are short by £1.72 per hour!

 

Edited to add that as someone who is self employed and runs a packaway setting my misc. costs according to my accountant come in at something like £2000 for allowances such as using home as office, motor expenses, laundry expenses, sundries and computer consumables used at home to cover the expenses of not being able to do laundry and office work at the hall that I rent - just another figure to be aware of !

Edited July 6, 2015 by SueJ

[Guest]

This is all so interesting and a really useful discussion but I feel there are some things that should also be considered.

I understand the use of living wage (and would call for that to be introduced immediately) but at the moment it is not a legal requirement and may never be so. The minimum wage is a pittance and we shoud be paying more than that, so for me linking pay scales to qualification (e.g. level 2 at minumum wage and rising in line with progression) is the way to go as this provides some consistency across sectors.

I notice that in the very useful spreadsheets that have been uploaded one states a leader is paid £14 per hour - as far as I am aware this would be more than a nursery teacher in a school who's pay is determined by national agreements. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be paid that amount but I do think it should be linked to something and to me qualification might be the way to go (i.e. £14 might be if the person is EYP ot QTS or similar). I do feel it would be an error not to have some basis/justification for salaries paid.

My other point is the inclusion of a (I assume) notional profit margin in the costings - I think the government might say it is their job to ensure people don't lose money , not to guarantee profits. I think thats the crux of the dispute on funding between the government and day nurseries. Just some thoughts we may wish to consider

[Guest]

Sorry should have added this version also

 

 

MASTER COSTS SPREADSHEET - Pre Schools & Playgroups.xls

[SueJ]

This is all so interesting and a really useful discussion but I feel there are some things that should also be considered.

I understand the use of living wage (and would call for that to be introduced immediately) but at the moment it is not a legal requirement and may never be so. The minimum wage is a pittance and we shoud be paying more than that, so for me linking pay scales to qualification (e.g. level 2 at minumum wage and rising in line with progression) is the way to go as this provides some consistency across sectors.

I notice that in the very useful spreadsheets that have been uploaded one states a leader is paid £14 per hour - as far as I am aware this would be more than a nursery teacher in a school who's pay is determined by national agreements. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be paid that amount but I do think it should be linked to something and to me qualification might be the way to go (i.e. £14 might be if the person is EYP ot QTS or similar). I do feel it would be an error not to have some basis/justification for salaries paid.

My other point is the inclusion of a (I assume) notional profit margin in the costings - I think the government might say it is their job to ensure people don't lose money , not to guarantee profits. I think thats the crux of the dispute on funding between the government and day nurseries. Just some thoughts we may wish to consider

Have a look at post 20 on this thread there are a couple of links to justify/evidence wages costs.

 

Somewhere on the forum Rea has put the Birmingham consultation (sorry I just can't fathom out linking to other threads) document which talks about paying the living wage (as a condition of being able to offered funded places) and making an allowance for a 6% (presumably of turnover as that's how it's normally worked out) profit - also useful evidence documents.

 

To be honest however we all need to be reminding the government that they are buying a service on behalf of parents so to be perfectly rebellious they should be challenged to pay what it costs and not turn it round so that we have to justify our business models!

[Guest]

Sorry Sue J, but I don't recall what Birmingham Council choosing to do being applicable or compulsory to the rest of the country.

 

I really do feel if we are unable to justify business costs then we will end up stuck with whatever they choose to pay us, as thats why we are where we are

[sunnyday]

Sorry Sue J, but I don't recall what Birmingham Council choosing to do being applicable or compulsory to the rest of the country.

 

 

Firstly - welcome to the forum :1b

 

Actually I do think that what Birmingham Council are promoting is worth taking note of - this is not the only example of government talking about 'a living wage' - which is something I am sure we would like to aspire to :1b

[SueJ]

Sorry Sue J, but I don't recall what Birmingham Council choosing to do being applicable or compulsory to the rest of the country.

 

I really do feel if we are unable to justify business costs then we will end up stuck with whatever they choose to pay us, as thats why we are where we are

 

Oops didn't notice it was your first post Bones so will echo Sunnyday's welcome to the forum.

 

To pick up on your post - like Sunnyday says whilst what Birmingham Council's tack is worth taking account of and is IMO good "evidence" towards justifying our costs. Whilst I do not believe that we should be justifying ourselves I do agree with you that if we don't we will indeed get stuck with what is offered however I think the DfE and ONS sites are reputable evidence for business costs in respect of wages overheads.

 

The link to the DfE website in respect of teachers salaries is good evidence for those of us in settings with staff holding EYT status - broken down into hourly rates the DfE website suggests that a newly qualified teacher earns £24,200 (average starting salary). Teachers have to be available for 1265 hours which makes a starting hourly rate of £19.13 per hour - this rises to £27.35 per hour if you are on the average full time teacher salary of £34,600 pa. I think this makes a setting leader with EYT hourly rate of £14 per hour more than reasonable and wholly justifiable.

 

The ONS average salary data suggest a median full time wage of £450 per week for a woman working full time e.g., 30+ hours - if the average working week is 35 paid hours this would equate to £12.86 per hour making the costing of a living wage hourly rate more than justifiable, particularly if you have level 3 qualified staff as this is equivalent to their being A level qualified.

 

In my submission justification for the wages I wish to pay my staff will also refer to recruitment and retention problems in the sector. This is an extract from an NUT report written in 2013 in which the DfE acknowledge the issue and since then recruitment and retention problems have only gotten worse especially as the hourly rate for a sales assistant in Lidl's is £8.85.

 

"The DfE rightly identifies low pay and low status as two key drivers of recruitment and retention problems in the early years sector. Its proposals, however, do nothing to address them in any practical way. Whilst it is still possible to receive more financial reward, with a lot less responsibility, by working in a call centre or supermarket, why would anyone, especially those with lower levels of qualification, want to work in the early years sector?"

[LKeyteach]

Justification for profit.

This is not to make money for ourselves to have fab holidays in exotic places but to be able to add improvements. I don't have shareholders to impress but little ones who deserve new equipment and resources. If we don't build in a profit we won't move forward.

[mundia]

Just a couple of observations from a view of someone who isn't having to juggle all these finances but who is also passionate about the sector responding in as thorough and honest a way as possible to this call for evidence.

 

It's very difficult to try and make comparisons with teacher salaries because teachers are not paid hourly, and the 1265 hours is only the hours that can be directed. Teachers are 'expected to' work any more hours required to discharge their duties, and as this will vary for individual teachers, you can't calculate this as a generic hourly rate.

 

Regarding payments for additional responsibilities, again if you try to compare this with schools, the vast majority of teachers have some sort of extra responsibility but few get paid extra for them. As a setting you would need to decide what extra responsibilities you pay extra for and this again will vary from setting to setting.

 

In regard to whether or not you should make your calculation based on the living wage or the wage you actually pay, it's worth remembering that LAs cannot add extra requirements to receipt of funding either by stating a minimum salary level or by saying you have to have this post and that post in place. I would imagine the govt might disregard any evidence based on something LAs are not allowed to do.(even if they try to)

 

out of interest really, those of you that are responding to this, are you basing your response on what your costs are now or on what your 'wish list' would be or are you showing this as a comparison to indicate the short fall?

 

as I said just observations.

[SueJ]

Mundia whilst I agree that your comments are very sound - my comparison with teachers' salaries is not a side swipe at our mainstream colleagues' earnings but in early years there are no national or union fought for acceptable salary scales to help us when it comes to "evidencing" costs for what is our major outgoing - our wages bill. I offer it as a starting point only.

 

Insofar as evidencing what our costs are now or a "wish list" - the vast majority of us are working within a financial straight jacket dictated by our current funding rates - in order to do that we are wholly reliant on recruiting and retaining staff for what we can pay them out of that budget - in the majority of cases we are unable (not unwilling) to pay them a realistic and living wage that reflects their worth or recompenses them not only for the actual time that they work directly with the children in our care but also for the hours that they put in (many of them in their own time) taking on additional responsibilities such as attending child protection conferences, writing up SEN reports, contributing to planning etc. as well as the many hours "worked" in some settings by volunteers in all capacities from odd job men to chairing committees.

 

If we submit "actual current cost" wages outgoings instead of "true costs" wages outgoings that would enable us to pay our staff properly for the work that they do we will never be in a position to so as I have no doubt that whatever the flavour of the government they will want to get the service for the cheapest possible price.

 

Many of us are small businesses and are not yet having to pay work based pensions - but we will be doing so within the next 12 to 18 months - this additional wages bill expense is not yet an "actual current cost" but if I don't include it in my "true costings" now there is absolutely no slack in the budget to include it later in the hope that funding rates will increase.

 

We are in the situation of damned if we do provide actual current costs and damned if we provide "true costs".

 

I intend to submit true costs based on fair wages rates rather than actual current figures in respect of my wages outgoings - all my other costs will be my current costs.

 

I also believe that it is important to point out in our evidence how much per hour we actually receive from our LAs as central government doesn't seem to "see" this hourly rate rather they "see" the hourly rate figure that they pass down to the LAs which in most cases is significantly more than is received at grass roots level.

[Guest]

So today we have it,courtesy of George the treasurer, the minimum staff wage (obviously some will be paid more than that) we should use in cost projections is £7.20 (assuming all staff are over 25) - this is what he/they see as the living wage and it comes in from April 16 but rises to £9 by 2020.

[mundia]

Yes I did wonder what the budget would bring that might impact on the consultation...good job if you haven't submitted yet. That answers my query then really.

I haven't heard anything yet but do we know at what rate this will rise at in order to make the £9 by 2020? And what about the under 25?

[Rafa]

Justification for profit.

This is not to make money for ourselves to have fab holidays in exotic places but to be able to add improvements. I don't have shareholders to impress but little ones who deserve new equipment and resources. If we don't build in a profit we won't move forward.

Thats a very good point LKeyteach! The fab holiday sounds good though......: )

[eyfs1966]

don'y forget to factor in the new national living wage that was announced today!!

[SueJ]

don'y forget to factor in the new national living wage that was announced today!!

At least it gives us a definite starting point for a realistic wage in terms of costs.

 

As it comes in in April 2016 it will be in place for September 2017 when the 30 hours comes.

 

In theory it should be about £7.65 per hour by then if it is going to reach the £9 per hour target by 2020.

 

Do remember though that this is likely to push more staff into the bracket where they start paying the work place pensions so that too will be an increase in costs!