The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER THREE: PILOT OUTCOMES

Table 3.1: Summary of Key Points

Introduction

3.1 The aim of the pilot was to offer a virtual childcare guarantee in order that the childcare barrier for lone parents be removed. The intended outcomes of the pilot could therefore be summarised as follows:

• the availability of childcare provision
• take-up of childcare by lone parents and other parents
• increased rates of entry to work by lone parents (because of the childcare made available).

3.2 In this section, we explore the outcomes achieved. This is based on evidence collected during qualitative interviews and analysis of the available quantitative evidence from monitoring information. There were some gaps in the MI provided which means quantitative figures presented should be treated with caution.

Availability of Childcare: Developing the Childcare Infrastructure

3.3 In order to provide a virtual childcare guarantee, pilot areas needed to ensure that formal childcare was available. This was to be achieved through the provision of existing childcare and by developing new childcare to address identified gaps in provision.

3.4 As highlighted in the preceding section, both Aberdeenshire and Fife developed new provision as part of the pilot. This included the development of unique forms of new childcare to support and enhance the existing childcare infrastructure.

3.5 A key positive outcome from the pilot was the development of:

• more flexible provision - such as Sitter Services, Extended Hours provision running until 9pm in the evening and weekend provision
• activity based provision for the over 12s - such as After School Clubs running abseiling and other recreational activities
• holiday schemes.

3.6 Quantitative evidence from the available management information shows that both areas created new childcare places over the course of the pilot. Table 3.2 shows the Sure Start MI on the creation of new childcare places over the course of the pilot period.

Table 3.2: Development of Childcare Infrastructure

Source: Sure Start MI, February 2006 (Fife and Aberdeenshire)

Note: These places were created during May 2005. No additional places have been created since May 2005.

3.7 Fife created twice as many new places in schools than Aberdeenshire (48 cf. 24), however, Aberdeenshire created a significant number of places in other childcare settings (406). Caution should be exercised in interpreting the figures presented however, since qualitative feedback from both areas suggests that there are constraints in reporting childcare information. The reliability of the resulting data can therefore be questioned.

3.8 Table 3.3 below details the number of schools that have joined or left during the pilot period. Sufficient data was not provided to detail the total number of schools, or the number of places in these schools, providing childcare over the course of the pilot period.

Table 3.3: Schools Joining or Leaving During the Pilot (no. of people referred to pilot)

Source: Sure Start MI, February 2006 (Fife and Aberdeenshire)
Note: No schools have joined or left since May 2005.

Take-up of Childcare by Lone Parents and Partners

3.9 Take-up of childcare by lone parents and partners has been mixed, with many more places taken up in Aberdeenshire than in Fife, according to the MI. Specifically, the take-up of new places created during the pilot has been relatively low.

Take-up of new and existing places

3.10 Table 3.4 below details the number of new and existing childcare places taken up by lone parents or partners over the pilot period in the two Local Authorities, distinguishing between childcare places in schools and places in other childcare settings.

3.11 The take-up of new and existing places has been much higher in Aberdeenshire than in Fife, with the majority of the take-up in Aberdeenshire being of childcare places in settings other than schools.

Table 3.4: Places taken up (by either lone parents or partners)

Source: Sure Start MI, February 2006 (Fife and Aberdeenshire)
Note: the data for Fife shows that there has been no change in take-up of places since May 2005.

3.12 While there has been no change in the take-up of places in Fife since May 2005, places have been taken-up in Aberdeenshire between May 2005 and the last reporting period in February 2006. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 present the cumulative take-up of new and existing places over the pilot period. This shows that the majority of new places were taken up during July 2005, while the take-up of existing places has been much steadier over the entire pilot period.

Figure 3.1: New childcare places taken up (Aberdeenshire)

Source: Sure Start MI, February 2006 (Aberdeenshire)

Figure 3.2: Existing places taken up (Aberdeenshire)

Source: Sure Start MI, February 2006 (Aberdeenshire)

Take-up of new places

3.13 The MI data on the take-up of the new places by lone parents and partners (see Table 3.5) suggests that take-up of the new places has been low in Fife (at 25%). In Aberdeenshire, the take-up the new places created in schools has been very low (at 8%) whilst the take-up of places in other settings is much higher at 60%.

Table 3.5: Take-up of new places

3.14 Figure 3.3 presents the creation and take-up of new places over the course of the pilot period, highlighting the gap between the number of places created and the number taken up.

Figure 3.3: Childcare places created and taken up (Aberdeenshire)

Source: Sure Start MI, February 2006 (Aberdeenshire)

Take-up by lone parents and partners

3.15 In the following tables ( Table 3.6 and 3.7) the take-up of childcare is shown, distinguishing between take-up by lone parents and take-up by partners.

Table 3.6: Take-up by number of families

Source: Sure Start MI, February 2006 (Fife and Aberdeenshire)

Note: The data for Fife shows that there has been no change in take-up since May 2005.

Table 3.7: Take-up by number of children

Source: Sure Start MI, February 2006 (Fife and Aberdeenshire)

Note: The data for Fife shows that there has been no change in take-up since May 2005.

3.16 The data suggests that, in Fife, of the twelve families (see Table 3.5) who have taken up the childcare, the take-up is by just one child per family. In Aberdeenshire, however, take-up has been by more than one child per family in some cases.

Take-up by lone parents and referral source

3.17 There is no quantitative data available detailing the precise number of lone parents who were informed of the pilot by Jobcentre Plus. However, qualitative feedback suggests take-up has been poor. Anecdotal feedback (via steering group meetings and from the Scottish Executive) suggests that Jobcentre Plus staff interviewed "a high number" of lone parents and "almost none were interested in employment or childcare." Of the lone parents interviewed by Jobcentre Plus advisers, 125 consented to their details being used for the purposes of evaluation. This included 98 lone parents from Fife and 27 from Aberdeenshire. These contact details provided the sample from which lone parents were selected for the purposes of evaluation.

3.18 The MI provides some information on the number of referrals from other (non-Jobcentre Plus) sources in Aberdeenshire. According to the MI, 41 parents have been referred from other sources. The MI for Fife shows that there have been no referrals, however it is more likely to be the case that Fife has not collected any information on referral sources.

Entry to Work by Lone Parents

3.19 It is not possible to make a robust assessment of the extent to which the availability of formal childcare results into entry to work for lone parents. The available MIdoes not provide information on the employment status of the lone parents or partners, and therefore, it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions about the impact of the availability of childcare places on employment status from the monitoring information collected.

3.20 Provision in Fife had only been running for a short period before the pilot ended and initial uptake was slow. There was therefore insufficient time to assess the effects of Extended Hours and weekend childcare on lone parent movements into work.

3.21 Qualitative evidence suggests moves into employment as a result of the pilot are very low. Of the 41 lone parents interviewed as part of the Strand Two fieldwork, just seven lone parents were in employment (see Table 3.8). Of these seven:

• five lone parents were working part-time for between 4 and 21 hours per week
• two lone parents were in full-time employment.

Table 3.8: Employment Status and Childcare Use

3.22 Of the five lone parents working part-time, there was an even split between parents using formal and informal childcare:

• two lone parents were using 'formal' childcare (nursery and school)
• two relied on informal childcare and were using family members to care for their child
• one lone parent used a patchwork of formal and informal childcare (nursery provision and the child's father) to enable her to work 21 hours per week in a call centre.

3.23 Of the two lone parents working full-time, one was using informal childcare whilst the other relied on formal childcare to enable her to work as a social worker.

3.24 Three of the seven lone parents in employment relied on informal childcare. As such, their moves into work cannot be attributed to the Extended School Childcare Pilot.

3.25 Four lone parents were using formal childcare. For three of these, the availability of formal childcare was clearly linked to their ability to take up employment. For one lone parent the availability of formal weekend childcare has been fundamental to her ability to work. Entry to work for this lone parent can therefore be directly attributed to the pilot.

Table 3.9: Case Study Example

Additional Outcomes

3.26 A number of additional outcomes from the pilot can be evidenced. These relate to:

• improved relationships within respective organisations. Through delivery of the pilot, stakeholders within the Local Authority felt they had improved their relationship with staff from Jobcentre Plus and vice versa. The development of this relationship provides a strong signal of an improved understanding in 'connecting' the childcare and movement into work issue in the future;
• increased/improved availability of childcare for non-lone parents. Clearly, it would not have been cost effective to develop childcare specifically for lone parents. Hence, any childcare available or newly created through the pilot was available for all parents regardless of status. Feedback from a small number of non-lone parents who used the new provision created through the pilot showed that they valued the provision and perceived it to be high quality. However, the issue of deadweight emerges here. Non-target parents are benefiting from the provision that is subsidised from pilot monies and that was developed to try and address the issue of affordability for lone parents in receipt of Income Support (see Example One below). This may suggest that different charging mechanisms should be in place for non-target group parents when pilot monies are used to subsidise provision.

Table 3.10: Case study examples from non-lone parents

Summary

3.27 A key outcome from the pilot has been the development of childcare through sustaining existing places and the creation of new and innovative forms of additional provision. Positive outcomes have also been achieved in terms of improved links between Jobcentre Plus and the Local Authority. Nevertheless, key outcomes in terms of take-up of formal childcare by lone parents and subsequent entry into work have been poor. The reasons for such modest outcomes are explored further in the following four sections where we assess the supply and demand-side factors impacting on delivery and take-up, categorise lone parents into types and explore the extent to which the barrier of childcare has been removed.

« Previous | Contents | Next »