To think the government consistently underestimates the actual cost of childcare?

[MsMittens]

Another day another report about rising childcare costs. But what strikes me is that the figures referred to in these reports are significantly lower than the amounts actually paid for childcare (particularly in London and the South East). By way of example our DD is in nursery 4 days per week at a cost of £1,023 per month so annual cost is over £12,200 per annum and that is not even a full time place. We also have an au pair (I accept that may be a bit of a luxury but we have no family nearby to help out and both work full time in demanding jobs). So if we include au pair costs you are looking at £15,000 per annum. That is for 1 child under 3! If others are paying similar amounts (which I am guessing is the case as DDs nursery is oversubscribed), then these reports are grossly inaccurate and the Gov has no idea of the scale of the problem. AIBU to wonder where on earth the Gov gets its figures from?

This just enrages me as with costs like this of course it barely pays for some families to have both parens at work when childcare costs are this high and what generally happens is women leave the workforce (great if it is out of choice to be SAHM but not great if it is due to necessity). And don't even get me started on how hard it must be for single parent families. I just feel like the Gov cannot possibly assist parents if they have no idea of the actual costs involved.

Darn double post - posting on phone

The advertising of '15 hours free childcare' is highly misleading. It really does sound like exactly that - 5 half days or 3 full days care.

There's a nursery where I work and so many parents assume that they can have 15 hours free childcare a week for their 3 year old, costing the gvt the princely sum of around £670 per term. The cost (and this is a not for profit nursery) is at least double that.

You can't compromise on child/carer ratios, or skimp on facilities and toys etc.

Couldn't agree more. £6k is a drop in the ocean compared to what most people pay. I'd be back at work like a shot if childcare only cost me 6k a year! No idea where they get their figures.

I'm in London. I pay £20k per year - for a FT nursery place and an after school childminder.

Also it's not 15 hours free childcare - it's 15 hours free early years education.

I charge £32 for an 11 hour day including all meals and snacks with a home cooked evening meal.
I offer the 15 hours as 2 full days of 7.5 hours and if the parent wants a longer day they pay an extra fiver. Hard to see how I could do it any cheaper TBH

Why doesn't the media pick up on this?

Where we live the figure certainly hasn't gone up since DS was in nursery in 2006. Fees have risen by approx 7% pa though. It's just too little spread universally.

The whole 'free' thing is very misleading. We get a lot of parents who take it on face value, then you have to explain that no, it's not free for your child to come five half days a week - its closer to £115/150 a week.

chocolate do you mean you charge parents £150 a week to access the 15 hours funded places?

I agree with you OP. It is so frustrating!

I can't return to work because after tax my wages would just cover my cc costs for the two dc.

It's outrageous. My dh works, I desperately want to work, I'm worried about the impact on my career if I don't get back out there but my hands are tied.

It would help enormously if they let is pay childcare costs before tax.

Even though they are trying to make improvements they are still missing out scenarios like mine in those improvements! Argggh

I am always annoyed by the use of the term 'childcare' for the 15 funded hours of early education

I think politicos want to make it sound as if they are doing something on childcare, and it's easier to refer to that scheme inaccurately than to do anything else.

No - see the point is that it just won't cover 15 hours a week - it's a set amount per term, per child and is woefully inadequate. It would cover, what 5 hours a week realistically? Its just not possible to offer 5 hours a week childcare without the parents topping up the hours. Logistically it would be a nightmare.

Most childcare costs are reasonable, it's just under £3 an hour here for decent childcare. That's not a lot to pay for the looking after of our most precious children.

It's not the Governments fault and in fact there are many schemes in place to assist. The problem lies with parents. They expect to keep all their wages and not have to part with much in the way of childcare. If you have a basic salary then you understand prior to pregnancy that it's going to be tough childcare wise and you either wait until the salary is higher or take the hit and work for little during the early years. It's always someone else's fault, never the people that made the decision to procreate.

On a side note, the free 15 hours is meant as early years education. It's not meant as childcare as those who don't work use it too.

Do you not offer the funded places then 'cos it's against the law to only offer it if the parent pays a top up fee or is forced to take more hours ( or to pay for lunch as they HAVE TO HAVE THE OPTION OF BRINGING PACKED LUNCH)

oops, sorry about the caps!

I also find that there is never any mention of the continuing costs of childcare once children are in school. My DD's small village school does not provide wraparound care due to a lack of demand. I have to pay a private club £33 a day in breakfast and after-school club fees. I also have a younger DC in nursery 3 days per week and it eats up most of my salary. Knowing that the financial situation will not improve after their both in school makes it difficult to justify working.

tiger why don't you just use your 15 hours at the CM. CM's offer exactly the same EYFS structure and you would get 15 hours fees knocked off your CM bill

I think all childcare should be able to be paid before tax. To pay that £12,000 you're having to earn much more in the first place.

We're looking at circa £16,000 for nursery round here. That plus the same again for basic living costs is stopping us having children.

If what we offered just covered what the gvt pays out per child it would be, at a quick guess, about 5 hours a week. We are a not for profit organisation and offer early years education.

We do offer subsidies, get referrals from the council (so free places for some children via council) etc. but the bottom line is, we have wages, rent, heating etc to pay and £670 a term won't cover much.

Its just not really 15 free hours, its £670-odd a term towards early years education and that is diddley.

So chocolate do you charge parents extra or not? I'm confused

So what can the government do about it? Forced conscription to provide free/low cost childcare for mums and dads who obviously have better things to spend their earnings on?

grace childcare for school aged kids isn't much cheaper. I'm a LP and can only get tax credit help if my childcare changes for more than 4 weeks. so no help with Oct / Feb / may half terms or Xmas and easter break. I may as well take more unpaid leave than bankrupt myself with childcare.

We charge for care not covered by the government grant. Like I said, its only about £670 a term, which just doesn't nearly cover 15 hours. We'd be closed in a week if we gave every child 15 free hours.

Its a badly thought out and badly expressed scheme. It would work out as the gvt paying just over £3 per hour per child. You pay £2.50 for 2 hrs for the council run stay and play scheme next door (and they don't pay rent on their premises).

Firefly where on earth do you live that childcare is £3 p/h? In London/SE I would be unable to find someone to care for my dog for £3 p/h never mind my DD.

Just to clarify, my issue is this - the figures used by the government and other sources do not seem to represent real life. And while I agree that quality childcare costs ££ to provide and that it is a parents responsibility to consider childcare costs before having children (and I think most do), the issue of wages vs childcare costs is an important issue to a great number of people in this country and therefore should not just be dismissed out of hand in a "let the breeders be damned" attitude.

Politicians and government recognize that this is an important issue and yet they seem to be operating on the basis of inaccurate figures. How can they possibly address what is perceived by many to be serious issue based an incorrect figures? I agree that there is a lot of window dressing around regarding the currents scheme which do a great deal to assist working parents.

FWIW - it is also nigh on impossible to get a place for only 15 hours of EYE in our area (and this provision doesn't come anywhere close to allowing a parent to work full time).

you can't do that chocolate it's illegal. If the grant doesn't cover your costs then you must leave the scheme.
What are you charging for? top up fees?