The term 'on-cost' has a specific meaning and I suspect Mick Trott
is quite right about how few support workers are genuinely self-
employed. But can I ask for feedback on the following? The 'costs'
of providing a DSA-related service such as dyslexia support, note-
taking or whatever, include:
*the fee paid to the person delivering the service
*on-costs such as holiday pay, NI, sick pay etc.
*admin charges related to identifying and keeping registers of
students needing support and their service providers, matching
these, confirming attendance, billing the LEAs etc. (Making space
available may also arise.)
*maintenance of the service through endlessly replacing existing
providers, training them etc.
Of these, the DfES accept that the first two are inevitable, given the
way that EC directives are moving against endless use of short
term contracts. As such they agree that they should be set against
the DSAs.
They seem less certain about the last two. They argue that the
services are in support of the HEI's own students and thus the HEI
would have to provide them anyway. Against this is the argument
that the costs are an inevitable consequence of delivering a DSA-
derived service, probably at a level that no other funding could
justify. So even with the DDA, support in its current one-to-one
form and scale probably would not exist without the DSAs.
Such services can be delivered either by university employed staff
or private agencies and often are. I cannot imagine an LEA
questioning a private agency's overall charges including
adminsitration as this is an inevitable part of running a small
business. So why should a university carry the costs (possibly out
of its premium funding) of delivering services on behalf of the DSA
scheme? The harder they try, the more they deliver, the more they
are penalised. To be cynical if such charges were levelled at the
HEI, what is to stop it privatising the service and avoiding both the
costs and the hassle?
The level or proportion the admin charges vary greatly and the DfES
are aware this. Some are unrealistically low while others look a bit
opportunistic, so I'd be interested in examples of both fees paid to
providers as well as charges made to LEAs. Send info directly if
you feel a bit embarrassed about what your place insists on!
I'm sure there are arguments either way and I'd be keen to hear
them. The exec of NADO* are to visit the DfES in the next few
weeks to discuss a range of issues which affect our members
(arising from the DfES Review), so I'd appreciate your views
beforehand.
PS How about grey areas between DSA-able items of support and
those that should be paid for from Premium Funding? This is
another area the DfES are interested in.
*the NADO exec HE members are Ian Webb (M'chester Met), Deb
Viney (S'hampton), Bryan Jones (Mddx) and me.
Dave Laycock
Head of CCPD
Chair of NADO
Computer Centre for People with Disabilities
University of Westminster
72 Great Portland Street
London W1N 5AL
tel. 020 7911-5161
fax. 020 7911-5162
WWW home page: http://www.wmin.ac.uk/ccpd/
|