1 / 26

Reflections on Unit Costing Work

Reflections on Unit Costing Work. Focusing on a cost-benefit analysis of two services within a Sure Start programme (Chris Brain). Aims of this session. To outline what was done for this cost-benefit analysis of the two services To look at issues involved, and decisions made

ciqala
Download Presentation

Reflections on Unit Costing Work

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reflections on Unit Costing Work Focusing on a cost-benefit analysis of two services within a Sure Start programme (Chris Brain)

  2. Aims of this session • To outline what was done for this cost-benefit analysis of the two services • To look at issues involved, and decisions made • This will be a quick run through! • NOTE: this analysis was started in 2002, without reference to NESS guidelines • NOTE: permission from the Programme has been obtained

  3. Aims of the Analysis • The Sure Start Unit were talking about the importance of cost-benefit analysis • This programme wanted to find out how they were doing • They wanted to ‘practice’ • They wanted something manageable • Started in 2002

  4. Methods • Finance Manager worked out all the necessary costs • Practitioners noted numbers of children and adults, as well as their own hours • Case studies were carried out using observations and interviews

  5. What is cost benefit analysis? • Analysis of costs, analysis of benefits • Accountability • Mainstreaming • Monitoring for Sure Start Unit • Internal purposes - learning from evaluation

  6. What are costs? • Outlay costs are payments out • Imputables are what would cost something but are donated free of charge • Some costs are mixed in with other budgets • So costs are outlay; a proportion of other budgets; imputable costs

  7. What are benefits? • Number of children attending • Number of adults attending • Improved language ability • Quality measures like happier family • Quality measures like happier child • Future measures such as what intervention would cost at a later stage if needed

  8. Choice of settings – 1) Language Scheme • Language team input • Discrete, half-hour sessions with clear purpose • One-to-one provision, with parent present • 4 settings (3 primary school, 1 shop) and home visits

  9. Choice of settings – 2) Drop in • Drop-in facility • Supports some adult provision such as ESOL, Keep Fit, Asian Women’s Group • 2.5 to 4 hourly sessions • A central facility and will be central in new Children and Family Centre

  10. Some definitions of terms (1) • ‘Outlay’ costs are those paid out • ‘Imputables’ refer to what is donated by other agencies • E.g. building rent – given free by schools but ‘costed’ at £28 per session in the analysis • E.g. volunteers – give time free but ‘costed’ at £4.20 per hour in the analysis

  11. Some definitions of terms (2) • ‘True’ costs are what the service would cost without the Partnership (imputable costs added) • ‘Actual’ costs take outlay costs into account but allow donated services to be free • ‘Future’ costs are what the service will cost (e.g. Language scheme will have more volunteers)

  12. Data gathered • Four months chosen – Oct 02, Jan 03, Apr 03, July 03 – as representative • Numbers of children and adults recorded • Number of minutes provided recorded • Costs calculated (including imputables of every sort)

  13. Language Scheme ‘true’ costs • Cost per month plus imputables: £2,189.08 • Time scheduled per mth in hrs: 30.42 • Actual Children per mth: 34 • Adults per month: 34 • Cost per hour: £71.96 • Child per hour: 1.12 • Cost per hour per child per hr: £64.25

  14. Language Scheme ‘actual’ costs • Cost per month (no imputables): £1,636.75 • Time scheduled per mth in hrs: 30.42 hrs • Actual Children per mth: 34 • Adults per month: 34 • Cost per hour: £53.80 • Child per hour: 1.12 • Cost per hour per child per hr: £48.08

  15. Language Scheme – some conclusions • Clinic rates v Partnership rates (£82.70 v £64.25) • ‘True’ v ‘actual’ rates (64.25 v £48.04) • If take up rate higher (currently 55.7%) • If adults are said to benefit too • A question of averages (all 13 home visits, 16 out of 22 at shop)

  16. Data gathered – Drop in • Staff costs £18,906 • Premises £6,492 • Communication £195 • Equipment £1,419 • Sundries £781 • TOTAL (annual) £27,793 • Of staff costs £4,107 are imputable costs

  17. Drop in - costs • Cost per month (no imputables): £2,316.08 • Time per month in hours: 53.62 hrs • Children per month: 114 • Cost per hour: £43.19 • Child per hour: 2.13 • Cost per hour per child per hr: £20.28

  18. Drop in – some conclusions • Staff hours v child hours (138.12 v 53.62 means 2.58 staff for each hour) • Number of children per session (8 for 4 hours is costed at 2 per hour) • Adults benefit too but not counted • Partnership holistic approach (picking up on issues, working with families = benefits)

  19. Case study evidence • Parents appreciate services • Attendance at Language Scheme more likely than at ‘clinic’ setting • Language progress at Scheme clear • Drop in encourages: (in child) confidence, social skills, (in adult) sharing and support

  20. Overall conclusions (1) • Language Scheme costs more than Drop in (around three times as much) • Take up rates are low for both (but better than national ‘clinic’ rates re: Scheme) • Benefits can appear later so hard to judge • Partnership holistic working is important • Figures use ‘true’ costs not ‘actual’ costs (mainstreaming?)

  21. Overall conclusions (2) • By giving a cost to everything, there has been a lot of honesty so a ‘worse case’ scenario - not really accounting for Partnership working • Benefits of early intervention are very hard to quantify • Case study evidence is clear – services are appreciated

  22. References (1) • Karoly, L. A., Greenwood, P. W., Everingham, S. S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M. R., Rydell, P., Sanders, M., & Cheisa, James.1998 “Investing In Our Children: What We Know And Don’t Know About The Costs And Benefits Of Early Childhood Interventions” RAND

  23. References (2) • Meadowes, P., 2001 “Guidance for Sure Start Local Evaluators On The Estimation of Cost Effectiveness” National Institute of Economic and Social Research • Moran, R., Myers, R., & Zymelman, M. 1997 “The uses of cost analysis in Early Child Care and Development (ECCD) programs” Inter-American Development Bank

  24. References (3) • Holtermann, S., 2001“Children’s Centres: exploring the costs of delivery of a national scheme” Daycare Trust Facing the Future Policy Papers • Holtermann, S., 2002 “Children’s Centres: exploring the costs of delivery of a national scheme” supplementary note Jan 2002

  25. References (additional) • Universal childcare provision in the UK – towards a cost-benefit analysis. Discussion paper by PricewaterhouseCoopers. August 2003. • www.pwc.com • NOTE: this was a paper published after we had done the analysis and report, so not used.

  26. Contact details • Chris Brain • Centre for Research in Early Childhood, St. Thomas Centre, Bell Barn Road, Attwood Green, Birmingham. B15 2AF • 0121 464 0029 • C.brain@crec2.org.uk

More Related