30 Free nursery hours?

[suzylee73]

Hi all,

I have a new placement, a 3 year old girl who is at nursery. Currently she has her 15 hours funded and the local authority has been funding the other 15 hours. They do not want to do this anymore and I can't afford to do it either.

I tried to apply online but as soon as I ticked the foster carer box it said I was ineligible! I think carers are classed as not working maybe?

Have any other carers managed to secure 30 hours funded for their foster child?

I believe there’s a different route to apply for looked after children.

If you or your partner work outside the fostering role the hours needed for the 30 funded hours scheme, and it’s agreed in the child’s care plan then it can be approved and countersigned by the LA.

Thank you for your reply.

Unfortunately I don't work as I have multiple children so between meetings, training and some medical appointments I have no time left.

I consider fostering a job and I'm sure most do but the government doesn't. It will cost me £100 a week to top up to 30 hours but I will have to do it.

It makes me wonder how many other carers are doing the same thing?

Here, foster children get 15 hours unless we have another job to get the 30 hours. Otherwise funding comes from the LA.

I think its quite common for them to pull funding for additional things as it was often there to manage the placement. You could argue your case but it's up to the LA if they fund it.

Why does she have to continue the 30 hours? If they won't pay why can't you just let her attend the 15 and she is with you the rest of the time?

Are you paid to foster her 24/7?If so 15 free hours should be enough and you look after her the rest of the time.

If not paid to foster her and you are working
I would ask to stop her placement.

I think it depends on the reason the child had 30 nursery hours and whether it would be detrimental to remove these, as to whether the LA would pay for the extra 15 hours.

My understanding is one foster carer needs to be working outside of the fostering role to qualify for the free 30 hours and even then the LA may feel there’s a lot going on for a 3 year old with contact etc to be in nursery 30 hours a week.

30 hours at nursery is quite a long time. Does she need to go for that long? I would just use the 15 hours and if you need to keep her busy look for local toddler groups to take her to.

I have to bring this up again sorry!

I have just filled in the foster carers form to claim 30 hours nursery funding as my partner is working..

It asks me if I work out side of fostering and I don't as I have 3 foster children. It doesn't feel right as in my eyes, fostering is a job ..... do they think we send the kids to school then sit about watching day time TV?! My days are for medical appointments, meetings, training etc If I can fit a little me time in the week I am lucky

We are "advised" that working along side fostering would be difficult by our agengies and LA's as it makes it harder to fulfil all our commitments. But our goverment doesn't class us as workers

Sorry I just feel a little discriminated against and sad that some children our vulnerable children miss out on some valuable education and therefore are also discriminated against

Thank you for attending my pity party x

I can see what you mean - and I personally don't disagree - but the devil's advocate position would be that your job is to look after the children, and so you don't need the 30 hours free, IYSWIM?

A friend went through a battle with our LA about this, because they decided that she qualified for her biological child, but not for her fostered child, which was difficult because how do you explain that one child has to/gets to go to nursery for an extra day, and the other doesn't/can't?

There wasn't a way forward, though. She took the court case quite far but then ran out of funding. They told her that she was paid to look after the foster child, and therefore wasn't eligible for more funding to get someone else to.

I was fostered and absolutely see why you'd like the "time off", which isn't really off, as you've said - but I suppose if they were biologically your children, you'd have a lot of those same things, and wouldn't be eligible for help as you'd be a SAHP.

Did you talk to your LA about potentially continuing funding, if you think it'd be detrimental to drop it?

My son has just got his 30 hours free, although it now costs us more than it did when he got 15 hours free because they put the consumables and extra day charge up as they get less from the Government for 3 year olds 🙃 It's such a bizarre scheme. I know it's supposed to be optional charges, but you'd lose your place if you didn't pay here, and there's a massive queue for nursery places. Our wait list is currently until October '27.

Edit: i hope this doesn't sound dickish - I was trying to empathise, not suggest you don't deserve the hours.

Thank you for your input, it's great to get other peoples views and you weren't dickish at all x

You are right though the whole nursery funding hasn't helped parents financially as much as they thought it would and the nurseries are going to struggle financially. Lack of nursery places has made it quite competitive too

I wondered if other foster carers had this issue too. I will get a part time job or pay the difference (which is half the fostering allowance btw) to enable them to go to nursery. It's really helped with development delay and poor social skills plus they love it, it's just so good for them to go.

I am willing to do what ever it takes to give this child the best possible start, I just wish the local authorities felt them same.

If you just want the child to go to nursery because you believe they will learn best then I would argue with you that they would learn more by spending more time with you. I was a teacher, and have taught nursery, and while a lot of children get a lot out of it after the age of 3, 30 hours is a long time. In my opinion, ideally a child would attend part time and spend the rest of the time with their primary carer. 1:1 with an adult is so important for children; particularly those who have had a less than ideal start in life.

It’s different if you are finding the child a real challenge and need a break. In that case I can understand wanting them to go full time. But if it’s just that you feel that educationally it would be better for them I would highly doubt that would be the case.

It's such a horrible system for things like this. Sure, they could argue that you're paid to look after the child so they shouldn't be 'double paying' to fund the hours.

... but that would only make sense if you were paid even the minimum wage for all the hours you looked after the child. If you work it out across all the daytimes, evenings, weekends, overnights: you'd make something like £3/hr.

Or to put it another way: you could say your wage is for the OTHER 138 hours you're looking after the child