EL Creche Closure Proposals – Questions - November 2009

Questions ( EL = Edinburgh Leisure) A

1 What alternatives did EL look at before deciding all 4 crèches must close? Other options were put to the Board (30/9).

However none of the options given to the Board included any other alternative
options re. continuing crèche provision.

This is because EL no longer feel they can provide creche services. Therefore
detailed options such as ‘reducing crèche provision’ were not looked at before the
30/9 Board meeting.

2 What reduced service option appraisals were carried out? None - please see above

What Equalities Impact Assessment was carried out? (CEC and CEC suppliers are None – Saveourcreche asked Deidre Brock for a copy of this on 7/12/09. None has
required to carry out equalities impact assessments before making decisions/changes). The been supplied.
closure decision impacts 100% female staff and 99% female users.

3 What other EL changes are proposed to meet the cut in CEC funding? The 3 things the EL Board decided to prepare to do are:

Are any of these complete withdrawals of services? • Close all the creches
• Close Queensferry Recreation Centre
If not, why have crèches been singled out?
• Re-worked EL’s pay award

Only the crèche services are being completely eliminated.

Queensferry currently has 2 EL locations so EL services will still be provided in the

area.

The crèches have been chosen by the Board because :

1- the EL operations team put various options to the Board, but no ‘reduced
service creche’ option – only the full closure proposal
2- the £12 subsidy ( which Saveourcreche do not agree with – see details
below) per visit figure stated was felt to be too high to be sustainable.

As EL has previously said, in their opinion the only viable alternative that would
produce the £130k saving the crèche closures generate would be closure of
another EL Centre. As user numbers at such a centre are c. 5000 a week this was
not felt a reasonable alternative.
4 How exactly is the £12 subsidy calculated? Creche costs minus Staff Costs, minus Overheads minus crèche income.

EL supplied figures for budget of 2009/10 = £165,829

What is the subsidy for each centre?
• Staff costs were £136,000 and overheads £29, 000.

Why is there such a high central overhead? • Income from crèche visits in the year so far = £24,565

Why does income generated not get offset against perceived subsidy?
• So city-wide subsidy at current time is calculated as £11.95 per visit.

What has EL agreed is an appropriate subsidy for a crèche visit? ( all EL activities are EL does not feel the overhead figure is high.
calculated as having some kind of subsidy)
Income from the activity the parent is at the Centre to do (e.g. their swim, gym visit,
exercise class) is excluded from this subsidy figure.

EL has always accounted for ‘creche subsidy’ in this way and feels it is an
appropriate calculation. So income generated is not offset against crèche costs.

EL has not stated any acceptable subsidy for crèches. Other activities currently
carry around a £2 - £3.90 subsidy per visit.

EL has supplied the subsidy figures per Centre below:

Actual Actual Actual Actual

(Apr- (Apr- (Apr- (Apr-
TOTAL
Dec) - Dec) - Dec) - Dec) -
APLC DLC GLC PSC
Visits 2,559 1,207 1,936 2,155 7,857
Income (£) 8,748 3,363 5,817 6,637 24,565
Costs (£) (37,369) (27,655) (22,965) (34,954) (122,943)
Net (£) (28,621) (24,292) (17,148) (28,317) (98,378)
Subsidy per visit
(£) (11.18) (20.13) (8.86) (13.14) (12.52)
Income per visit (£) 3.42 2.79 3.00 3.08 3.13

However EL also pointed out that included in the APLC and GLC Income figures is
funding of £2000 per Centre from a current Post Natal Depression project.

The effect of this is that APLC’s income from paying customers was only £6,748 in
the 9 months Apr-Dec 09. This means the subsidy per visit was really £11.97.

In the case of GLC, the income from paying customers was only £3,817 in the 9
months Apr-Dec 09 which brought the subsidy per visit figure to £9.89.

5 What revised fee structures were investigated?
C.£4- £4.50 / hour appears to be going rate for nurseries. EL rates are low.
To avoid lots of new/complicated payment charts but to guarantee EL higher income,
why can crèche user members not be offered a higher ‘Leisure & Creche’ monthly
membership?
Why were 2nd child sessions cut in price if subsidy per visit was an issue?
6 Which external organisations EL have consulted re taking on service?
What voluntary sector not for profit organisations have EL contacted?
7 Why did EL not contact both Childcare Connections and North Edinburgh Childcare
Partnerships in December as part of their investigation into alternatives?
( both receive Fairer Scotland funding for childcare via Neighbourhood Partnerships)
8 Cllr Brock told us EL prepared to arrange for parents to use facilities (EL make room,
toys, heating etc. available).
How does EL see this working beyond April?
How will EL co-ordinate users to allow this to happen efficiently?
9 What alternative funding sources have EL investigated re. crèche provision/access to
sport for carers?
Lotto funding ? ( e.g. Sport England for women to get back into sport)
Fairer Scotland funding ? ( EL creches meet at least 2 of the 3 criteria for this central
funding)
10 IF EL close the crèches, will ‘unused’ EL memberships get refunded?
11 When EL have made other changes that impact users, they have prepared impact
assessments and ‘retention plans’ for the Board. How are EL planning to retain us?
12 Will EL allow ‘pilot’ of any alternative arrangements for a few months beyond March?
Even if EL offset the cost of the User’s exercise class (which they do not) the least
subsidy per visit is experienced at Gracemount (£9.89 minus – say - £5 = £4.89).
However this is still felt too high to continue compared to other subsidised
activities.
None - because EL no longer feel they can provide creche services.
‘Creche membership’ category not considered because EL no longer feel they can
provide creche services.
Apparently EL introduced the reduction for ‘2nd child’ following some customer
feedback. Unfortunately it would appear to have further diluted income attributable
to the crèches.
EL provided this link to the list of organisations they contacted:
http://www.scottishchildcare.gov.uk/Home.aspx
Please see above
Appears to be no reason why either may not have been contacted.
EL does not see this as a viable alterative unless another organisation offers to
take this forward.
None – as 1 above. EL no longer feel they can provide creche services so are not
looking for alternative funding.
Lotto or Fairer Scotland funding have not been considered.
No
No retention plan for this particular group of users has been prepared.
Only if provider is not EL
13 Will EL consider the ‘saveourcreche’ proposal put to Full Council on 17 December No - EL no longer feel they can provide creche services
2009? ( ‘cost neutral’ option )