Childminder Recruitment and Retention Consultation

The Government are seeking views on how to increase the number of new childminders and  reduce the number of those leaving the profession. Not all questions are relevant to childminders, some are aimed at landlords and LAs so do share the consultation with anyone you think may be interested. 

​The consultation ends on 10th May so I urge anyone who has not yet submitted their response does so as soon as possible. 

Below you will find edited versions of my own responses. You may not agree with my replies, but you may find them helpful when composing your own.

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should expand the range of regulated health care professionals, working within a GP surgery, who can complete health declarations for prospective childminders

• Overall, I think this is a good idea. There are not enough GPs so many of their traditional duties are falling to other health professionals, such as nurse and paramedic practitioners.
• I also think it should be statutory for practices to sign off on these forms and a fixed fee agreed with the BMA. There is far too much variation currently - I've seen anything from free to £300 quoted.

Question 2 (to 5): Have you ever experienced an issue when seeking (planning) approval to operate or expand as a childminder?

• I know a number of childminders who have been refused consent due to a restrictive covenant on their property or housing association agreement.
• In my LA planning consent must be sought when employing an assistant or operating with more than 6 children at any one time
• There should be clear guidance to LA planning departments, landlords, housing associations and mortgage companies that childminding is working from home rather than operating a business in the traditional way. Although I realise there is some argument for saying that if there are employees involved this changes the nature of the business, I believe again there should be guidance that this is disregarded for childminders and that planning should not normally be required, or if it is, that there is a discounted mechanism for this
• Government have said that new flexibilities provided for in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 will increase the time childminders can spend working from non-domestic premises and introduce a new category of childminder that can work 100% of their time from non-domestic premises. They believe these will go some way to help childminders struggling with landlord or planning issues. My thoughts on this are how can a childminder be registered wholly on non-domestic premises when the whole point of childminding is that it is home-based? Childcare 100% on non-domestic premises is effectively a nursery (or pre-school). Surely government should be looking at the root cause of the issue ie landlords, housing associations and planning rules, rather than trying to create a patch that takes away the essential nature of childminding, that it is home-based childcare.

Question 6: Are there any further actions you think the government could take to increase the recruitment of childminders?

• Increase the funded rate for 3&4 years olds (this is calculated based on group settings’ ratio of 1:8 or 1:13) to that of under 2s reflecting the limited childminder under 5 ratio of 1:3 – or average out the 3 age rates to create a new childminder rate.
• Make the childminder start up grant more equitable. It does not cost double to register with an agency, & if it did I would be questioning why - other than to increase the profits of an agency. £600 goes nowhere considering the overall cost of registering. This is discriminatory & unfair towards those childminders wishing to register with Ofsted. Consider directly funding some aspects of start-up costs, such as the health declaration, DBS service, 1st Aid, safeguarding etc.
• Make it a requirement for LAs to hold prospective Childminder briefings & offer training & support to ALL childminders, not just those rated requires improvement/inadequate, with enhanced support during the first 2 years
• Extend the Childminding Mentor programme for a further 2 years & promote it better
• In addition to allowing other healthcare practitioners to sign off on health declarations, the overall registration process needs to be overhauled to make it quicker & less unwieldy. There are too many strands. It should not take longer than 6 weeks. There should be no cutting corners on safeguarding checks though.
• Show that Childminders are valued & respected. Childminders need to be seen as qualified professionals. Removing the requirement for EYFS training undermines the whole profession. Childminders should be qualified, although this could refer to a pre-existing relevant qualification

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 will increase – from 3 to 4 – the total number of people that can work together under a childminder registration.
In my mind this is not childminding. My thoughts would be to change all registrations where a childminder works directly with another adult (assistant or co-minder) to Childcare on Domestic Premises BUT make registering as CoDP simpler, and those with this registration to follow the Childminder rather than group EYFS requirements. There could be a blend, with CoDP requiring certain qualification requirements for ratio purposes, for example.
Question 7-11: If you are a current or former early years provider, to what extent do you agree or disagree that receiving entitlement funding payments less frequently than monthly is a problem for you; affects your eligibility for Universal Credit; any other challenges in relation to being a childminder and your universal credit payments?
You need to be disciplined in your budgeting. My LA pays 70% upfront based on estimates at the beginning of term, followed by a balancing payment at half term, for the remainder due, based on actual attendance on Headcount Day.
I put the upfront payment in a savings account and work out a monthly amount by dividing the total by the number of term weeks & holiday weeks it covers eg 14 weeks term + 2 weeks school holiday = 16 weeks. So £3200/16= 200 per week x 4.33 weeks (month) = £866 per month. This is transferred at the beginning of the month into my business current account. Assuming there were no changes to my estimates, the balancing payment is around 30% & is transferred into my tax savings account. For me therefore, weighted termly payments are not an issue but I know that for other childminders they do cause difficulties.
I know childminders who have had their UC payments suspended or otherwise impacted as a result of termly funding payments, for example.
 
Question 17-21: What type of support do you access & where from? How can this support help you remain in the childminding profession? How could support be offered in a more effective or accessible way? Do you have any evidence you can share on how childminder support can improve retention?

• I am a founder member of a local childminding association - we have a constitution and committee, run a twice weekly drop-in with visitors from local support and advisory professions regularly attending, other outings and activities, vacancy service for members, funded access to a speech and language therapist, discounted first aid training, subsidised bespoke training, mentoring and mutual support. We have been operating for over 20 years and have gradually seen services around us eroded. We used to get funding from our LA to run training and pay for a weekly hall, we used to have access to children's centres that became Children and Family Centres, but these no longer exist. We provide an essential service to our members but extend our support to any childminders and are now looking to broaden the area we cover.
• We are trying to establish closer links with our LA to coordinate this, but they are stretched and because they aren't required to support providers with good and OS grades it's not a priority.
• I access LA and other training, am a member of multiple FB forums, the Early Years Alliance, PACEY, Early Education, childcare.co.uk etc all of which provide support & information
• I am signed up to newsletters from these organisations as well as from Ofsted & .gov.uk
• I used the Ofsted Childcare registration page on FB.
• My LA have a small team of Early Years and Inclusion Advisors who can be contacted but they are thinly stretched and limited in what they can offer.
• I meet up with local colleagues, visit the drop-in we run & parent/child groups (not many still welcome childminders though).
• Childminding is a lonely profession and whilst I value my independence I also value interactions and support. By sharing concerns, issues, joys and achievements with fellow childminders and EY professionals I am able to maintain my sanity and continued love of my profession. I am also able to advocate for childminding as a profession (not just a job) and challenge those who devalue us
• Support should be offered in all the ways and locations suggested, in order to make it as accessible as possible.
• What you should be asking is why is this support not already available - and the answer is simple, money!
• When I first started childminding our LA had just appointed its first cm officer. This became a team. They helped local childminders create local groups, provided training, advice surgeries and an LA childminding Network was created. However, once the requirement to belong to a Network to draw down FE payments was removed the Network was dissolved, and the other support gradually eroded (not just for cms, for all EY providers). The childminding team was reduced and then absorbed into the EY advisory team which was in turn decimated. Funding for drop-in was removed, children's centres closed and services in the reduced number of hubs equally diluted.
• I have spoken to childminders who were considering leaving the profession, but have changed their minds following interactions and support from other childminders in the local group, or online.
• I am an Area Lead for the Childminder Mentoring programme and some mentees had been considering leaving childminding before engaging in the programme but at the end of the term, were determined to stay. This programme has been mentioned in the consultation but what hasn't been made clear is that this is the final term and that the SPHs are only funded until next year. I strongly believe the DfE should consider extending the mentoring programme and advertising it more widely. Word is only just filtering through as those who have benefitted are now telling others, and the feedback from them is so positive.

Question 22-24: How can the department support childminders to benefit from the increased early years entitlements and wraparound childcare programme?

• Change how the entitlements work for childminders.
• The current entitlements are calculated based on ratios for group setting of 1:8 3&4yos, 1:5 2yo & 1:3 under-1s, which disadvantage childminders, who have a standard ratio for all children aged 1-5y of 1:3, with a further restriction of only 1 under 1 (unless an exception is applied).
• This means a childminder caring for all 3 & 4-yos could only earn around £15ph for example compared to having 3 x 2yos at £24ph, or 2 x 2yo & a 1yo at £37ph (based on simplifying the average funded amounts to £5/£8/£11 for 3&4/2/1yos respectively).
• I would suggest that childminder funding should reflect their 1:3 ratio and that they receive an averaged rate of £10ph for all under 5s (weighted in favour of under-3s given that many children start pre-school at 3yo). If not, I can see childminders only taking on contracts for unde-r3s or having to significantly increase their rate for non-funded hours and wraparound care to compensate or be creative in their consumables charges.
• Allow monthly funding payments on request
• Allow non-refundable deposits and notice payments for funded children, to cover a parent defaulting on their contract.
• Ensure childminders are treated equitably where there is shared care with another setting, or the child moves mid-term. Ensure childminders are paid for all hours of care provided if these situations occur
• Allow childminders to draw down funding for related children, or at least for related children not their own such as grandchildren/nephews/nieces. There could be restrictions placed on this policy to prevent people registering to only care for their own children eg they must also be caring for other non-related children; they must have good or outstanding grade; or must have a L3 qualification etc.
• For effective wraparound care LAs should facilitate links between childminders, schools and other venues so that existing wraparound care is not disadvantaged or removed.
• Require schools etc to create childcare partnerships with childminders who can offer care in their homes, or potentially on school premises - ensure this form of wraparound is actively promoted and supported by the LA. LAs must support and promote existing provision and not create new places/after-school clubs etc where there is sufficient existing provision - this must be mapped by the LA.
• Create a more even playing field between agency and independent childminders. The agency model is a commercial one, meaning agencies are profit making organisations. This profit comes from a combination of government funding, a slice of their childminder's profits and in some models, fees from parents. Government should NOT be using taxpayers’ money to fund their profits or offering double the amount of start-up grant to agency minders compared to independents. This is grossly unfair. Funding should be limited to covering the agency duties of registration and inspection (matching the funding given to Ofsted proportionately, to fulfil these duties)
• I have no objection to the principle of an agency as a membership organisation that the childminder pays a fee to, in return for support, including training (in the same way that I pay an annual fee to belong to PACEY/EYA/Childminding UK) and administration, plus a fee to cover registration and inspection, as I know some childminders are not confident in running the business side of things. I do object, however, to the government trying to steer all new childminders down this route, rather than promoting independent childminders equally, and supporting those organisations that work with independent childminders.
• Extend the DfE childminder mentoring programme which is just starting to gain momentum as it hits its final term. This programme has provided invaluable support to childminders, especially those who have registered during the covid period, and those who have experienced punitive style Ofsted inspections, that have severely damaged their self-confidence.
• Give all LAs a duty to provide services and support for ALL childminders, not just those graded below good, and provide funding to create local networks/hubs/groups or support those in place.

Question 25-27: Should the frequency of quality assurance visits that CMAs are required to carry out be decreased from one visit year to once every two years of registration?  Should there be any exemptions to this requirement?  Should the practice support that CMAs provide be optional rather than a legal requirement?

• CMA assessors do not have the same rigorous training and experience that is required of Ofsted inspectors. There is no consistency in training, or benchmarking to ensure CMA assessors have the required skills, knowledge, and expertise to deliver the required services. As an aside to the question, I strongly recommend that there is a standardised CMA assessor training programme that all assessors must complete, and that this is benchmarked against Ofsted Inspector training.
• Given the lack of robustness in the assessor training and lack of direct overview by Ofsted, the annual visit should remain in order to ensure safety of children and ensure that they are receiving good levels of care and learning.
• As an aside, I also disagree with the current Ofsted window of 6 years, which I believe to be wholly inadequate, and would advocate a return to the annual inspection process for all childminders, irrespective of who inspects them. This could be in the form of a combination of light touch annual inspections primarily to check safeguarding arrangements are effective plus a periodic full inspection, every 3-4 years.
• Those on a break due to maternity leave or long-term illness, or other extended break should have inspections deferred until they return to work. Having no children on roll should not automatically lead to deferral if the childminder is actively recruiting new clients.
• I think this deferral policy should apply to Ofsted too. Inspections should be deferred if the childminder is closed, with no children on roll due to pregnancy/parental leave, or long-term ill-health (of themselves or someone in their household), or during school holidays if they were a term time only childminder. After all, Ofsted would not be able to inspect a nursery that was closed, or pre-school during school holidays.
• There must always be provision to carry out an inspection where there are concerns a provider is not meeting EYFS requirements, in particular where a child's well-being or safety may be at risk.
• Practice support is surely a core element of the CMA offer, otherwise what are the childminders getting for their money apart from registration & inspection, which they could get independently from Ofsted (potentially for far less)? I find this proposal bizarre. A minimum level of practice support should remain mandatory for CMAS. The ‘administrative burden’ referred to is simply part of their job, which childminders are paying the agency for, through their fees.

 
it.