childcare sufficiency and sustainability disadvantaged areas 19 th march 2013
TRANSCRIPT
Childcare sufficiency and sustainabilityDisadvantaged areas
19th March 2013
2
Contents
The study Models of childcare markets in our
‘disadvantaged’ areas Financial sustainability of provision Evidence of parental demand and ‘sufficiency’ Implications of the 2YO entitlement Discussion
The research
1.
4
Background
State of childcare markets in disadvantaged areas
will ‘bear the brunt’ in delivering free places for two-year-olds
Research: Baseline
Factors associated with/explaining the baseline
Going forward
5
Research methodology
Qualitative study Documentary analysis of Childcare Sufficiency
Assessments Literature review – parental perspectiveDepth interviews in each of 10
selected LAs with LA strategists 5 group-based providers 2 childminders “Case study” approach
6
The ten local authority areas
Region Local authority type QIMD deprivation quintile
North Metropolitan District 5th
North Unitary Authority 5th
North County 3rd
East Unitary Authority 3rd
East Unitary Authority 3rd
Midlands Metropolitan District 5th
London London Borough 5th
South East Unitary Authority 3rd
South West Unitary Authority 4th
South West Unitary Authority 4th
Models of childcare provision in our local markets
2.
Funding – PVI sector providers
(Two year-old funding)
Three and four year-old funding
Past funding streams: - NNI
- Sure Start/Children’s Centre - Childcare Quality and Access Grant
Childcare provider
(Occasional sustainability grants)
Funding – LA-funded providers
Two year-old funding
Three and four year-old funding
Past funding streams: - social services
- NNI - Sure Start/Children’s Centre
- Childcare Quality and Access Grant
Subsidies for daycare places - i.e. sliding scale
Childcare provider
Subsidies for free places for children in need(over and above two year-old offer)
10
Model 1
PVI sector, no providers receiving ongoing LA funding + maintained sectorDaycare vacanciesSustainability concerns commonThree and four year-old/two year-old
funding vitalQuality variableCapacity for two-year olds
11
Model 2
LA-funded providers + PVI and maintained sector
LA funded providers dominate daycare/wraparound Free/subsidised places Children’s Centres key providers Quality high
PVI sector weaker Little capacity for two year-olds in LA-
funded provision
How financially sustainable were our providers?
3.
13
What does ‘financially sustainable’ mean?
Definitions differ…
Making a profit Achieving necessary surplus to be able
to re-invest in setting, or to have emergency funds
Breaking even
Many PVI providers in our sample struggling to do the above
Sustainability challenges – PVI sector
Low demand for daycare Role of childcare element of WTC
variable Increases in core costsLow pay levels = low morale, high
staff turnoverCost of complying with quality
standardsCompetition from
LA-funded/maintained sector
15
Sustainability checklist – PVI sector (1)
Able to attract steady fee-paying parents?
Local geography Deprivation ‘hot spots’
IF SO, permits operation of ‘mixed economy’ models
Sustainability checklist – PVI sector (2)
If heavily reliant on three and four year-old and two year-old funded places for income… Degree/nature of local competition Living costs Nature of local demand + ease of access Financial support
LA Chain nursery Other local donor
Type and capabilities of provider
17
Case examples – PVI sector
Footnote: Highlighting ways to pull out information you feel passionate about.
Little Angels day nursery is a not-for-profit organisation situated on a housing estate which is a mix of LA and privately owned housing. This nursery uses the income from its paid-for daycare places to subsidise the cost of its sessional funded places. It is financially secure.
Acorns is a private nursery operating on the edge of a deprived estate. It is unable to attract more affluent families because of its location. Its fees for daycare are very low, but the manager does not think that raising them is feasible. She trialed offering after-school care as well as daycare as a means of filling places and increasing income, but demand for this service was low. The nursery is struggling financially.
18
Sustainability challenges – LA-funded providers
Cuts to Local Authority ongoing funding? IF SO…
Innovative ways to sell places for what they cost to provide?
Convert paid-for places to two year-old places?
19
Case examples – LA-funded providers
Footnote: Highlighting ways to pull out information you feel passionate about.
Footsteps Children’s Centre is funded by the LA to offer graded fee levels for additional hours on top of funded ones, based on parental income. This ensures that lower income parent are not priced out of existing provision, and that Footsteps are able to sell places and remain financially sustainable. This funding is due to continue.
Little Tots Children’s Centre is in the middle of a deprived estate. It offers free wraparound and daycare places to children in need, and also has a number of subsidised daycare places, open to anyone. Cuts to Children’s Centre funding will mean the end to subsidised places. The choice will be to offer them at cost – which will make them inaccessible to local low income parents – or move to being solely a provider of funded places.
Was childcare in disadvantaged areas sufficient to meet parental demand?
4.
21
Sufficiency (1)Sufficiency difficult to measure
Parental perceptions of sufficiency affected by Actual availability, cost and
suitability Perceptions of availability cost,
suitability
22
Sufficiency (2) LA focus for daycare = sustainability and quality, not
pump priming
Parental choice in all areas for three to four year-old
provision
NNI history in our areas indicates low demand
BUT pockets of unmet demand in both models
Childminders flexible, low cost solution but note attitudinal barriers
Rolling out free early education to two-year-olds
5.
24
Overall views on the policy
Strong support and enthusiasm in principle
But also…many caveats and concerns….
…many of which linked to the time scales involved and lack of certainty of the specifics of the roll-out at the time of fieldwork….
…but also to real barriers and facilitators to successfully achieving realisation of the policy…
…resulting in an overall picture of uncertainty about the likely success and the likely implications of the roll-out for these childcare markets and the parents within
25
Opportunities
Meeting unmet parental demand/stimulating demand
Continuity and reliability of income Positive stimulus in difficult economic climate Help establish ‘early years culture’
26
Challenges
The level of funding for 2yos places Unequal opportunities for different types of
providers Quality standards required
27
Capacity for the roll-out
Model 1 – some capacity Model 2 – less capacity Overall: willingness, pockets of
‘ready to go’ capacity, lots of preparation, but unlikely to meet the numbers required without funding
28
Capacity challenges
Numbers of eligible childrenQuality standards required Involving a range of providers to
ensure parental choice
29
Financial support needs
Capital funding – adapt/expand premises
Revenue fundingFunding for trainingAdequate funding level for 2yos
places
•To the childcare providers and LA strategists who took time out of their busy days to talk to us!
•To the DfE for giving us the opportunity to carry out this interesting research
Full report downloadable at:https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR246.pdf
Ivonne Wollny [email protected]
Sarah Dickens [email protected]
Thank you
Discussion
6.