The Vaud Court of Auditors audited the management of the child day care system by the Foundation for Children’s Day Care (FAJE) and the care networks. While noting the rapid increase in the number of places (+51% from 2015 to 2022), she especially notes gaps in the system, which notably lacks clarity and harmonization.
“While there is still a lot of improvement work to be done, the development of day care has been considerable in recent years. There is a real desire and effort on the part of the FAJE to respond to the request of the parents”, summarized Nathalie Jacquerod, President of the Court, to the media.
In addition to subsidizing existing day care networks in the canton, the FAJE’s mission is to assess needs, coordinate the organization of day care and encourage the creation of places. However, it does not carry out any operational activity in the networks.
In 2022, the overall cost of day care amounted to 628 million francs, financed mainly by parents (38%), municipalities (37%) and the FAJE (21%), itself financed by the State of Vaud (53%) and employers (36%). This amount has been growing constantly since the system was put in place in 2006, resulting from the law on day care (LAJE), which came into force the same year.
Strengthen management
“The system has proven itself, it has become professional in nearly 20 years. However, the management of the FAJE must be perfected, support for the 33 networks must be strengthened with the aim of standardizing practices and improving their management financial,” said Ms. Jaquerod. The Court also makes nine recommendations to the FAJE, all of which are accepted.
In its audit, the Court mainly focused on aspects relating to the occupation and billing of existing reception places as well as cost management, auditing six networks. Main criticisms: a lack of clarity of the system considered too complex and decentralized; an illegible pricing system; strategic objectives of the FAJE that are too general; and insufficient pooling of management and operating tools.
The Court emphasizes that it is, however, the municipalities which play a preponderant role in the development of the supply of places, by grouping together into networks. “Very independent”, they bring together the reception structures which manage the daily activity and the quality of the more than 20,000 subsidized places.
Unexplainable prices
It also notes that the objectives and provisions of the law (LAJE) are not sufficiently defined. The networks interpret and apply these elements differently, which is difficult to understand for parents and taxpayers. For example, each network sets its price scales in its own way.
Due to the absence of harmonized accounting principles and analytical accounting, the average cost of a place is not comparable between networks or sometimes between the structures of a network. “The resulting significant differences are therefore difficult or even impossible to explain. However, such an analysis would make it possible to identify savings,” underlines Ms. Jaquerod.
The role and positioning of the FAJE itself vis-à-vis the networks are also not clearly established. Its strategic objectives are formulated in general terms and are not accompanied by targets and deadlines. “The future revision of the law by the Council of State should make it possible to clarify the role of the FAJE so that it can better impose its objectives,” said Ms. Jaquerod.
Unify the calculation method
Beyond subsidizing part of the salary costs of educational staff and surveillance tasks provided for by law, the FAJE has developed several incentive subsidies aimed in particular at supporting the opening of new places, promoting financial accessibility or strengthening administrative management of networks. The performance of these subsidies is little questioned, the audit also notes.
Each network also chooses its organization and administrative management in complete autonomy. There are few initiatives aimed at pooling resources and achieving economies of scale, the Court also notes. This is the case in the IT field, where the vast majority of networks use the same supplier without conducting group negotiations.
Two other criticisms are still made. The criteria for assigning places are disparate. Taking into account the activity rate of parents, which is imperative, is not applied uniformly.
The elements to be considered in the calculation of the income determining for billing to parents are also determined by the networks. The Court is of the opinion that the system would gain in transparency and efficiency if this method of calculation were unified.
This article was automatically published. Source: ats
