The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH

i. DTZ, in conjunction with Research Resource and Dudleston Harkins Social Research, were commissioned to undertake research into Parents' Access to and Demand for Childcare Survey (2006) on behalf of the Scottish Executive Education Department, Children, Young People and Social Care Group.

STUDY AIM

ii. The research specification clearly sets out the overarching aim of this research as a study to provide a detailed assessment of issues relating to parents perceptions of access to and demand for childcare and to compare and contrast these, where possible, with the results of the 2000 and 2004 surveys. It was clear from the specification that one of the key underlying aims was to draw out important messages from the research, with appropriate evidence, rather than reporting on all of the findings. Further detail, covering all of the quantitative and qualitative research is available in the annex reports that accompany this document.

OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

iii. The specific objectives of the research include the following:

• To establish the current levels of use of childcare by parents of children aged 0-14 years (to be broken down by these specific age ranges: 0-3, 4-5, 6-10 and 11-14) in terms of the types and quantities of provision that are used and how they compare with the 2000/04 survey(s).
• To investigate parental motivation in the choice of childcare services and identify any differences among groups of parents.
• To explore the patterns of demand for childcare, looking specifically at when childcare is required and what type is preferred. To identify and explore 'gaps' that parents have encountered in the current provision of childcare and details of barriers.
• To ask parents' opinions about various aspects of their current childcare arrangements, such as their convenience, quality and cost and what their priorities are in terms of future childcare requirements.
• To assess the financial cost of paid childcare, by type of provision and age range, and assess the impact of government measures to support parents with childcare costs, e.g. child tax credit, childcare vouchers and free pre-school education.
• To ascertain how much parents know about local childcare services, where they source information about childcare providers and where more information is needed. To look specifically at parents' use, and awareness, of local Childcare Information Services.
• To explore real choices that parents have made in deciding to return to work/study and the extent to which childcare availability, accessibility and cost have placed constraints on the type of job and pattern of work they chose.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

iv. In order to meet the aim of the study and fulfil the objectives of the research, a mixed methodological approach was used involving 1304 face-to-face quantitative interviews and 60 face-to-face qualitative interviews. More information on the approach is detailed below.

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Comparison with Previous Childcare Surveys

v. The methodology used in the 2006 study differs from the previous PADCS in that we agreed, following the pilot, that it was important to talk to parents not using childcare in addition to those using childcare. We also ensured that both groups would be routed to the relevant questions in the questionnaire. In summary, the methodologies employed are as follows:

• In 2000, both parents who had used childcare in the previous year, and those who had used it at some point previously, were included (88% in past year or 1,175).
• In 2004, only parents who had used childcare in the past year were included (100% in past year or 1,003). A follow-up survey was undertaken with 500 parents to follow up on some key issues regarding childcare.
• In 2006, we interviewed 1,304 parents with children in the relevant age category regardless of whether or not they used childcare. Of those interviewed, 547 parents (42%) use childcare. No follow-up survey was undertaken and the key issues followed up previously were covered in the main survey.

vi. The advantage of the methodology used in the current study is that it allowed a much more accurate assessment of true demand and drivers for childcare use and gives a more robust method for applying the findings to the general population. This is due to the fact that the views of parents who do not use childcare are represented as well as those of parents who do use childcare.

Sample Frame - Scottish Household Survey

vii. The Scottish Household Survey ( SHS) dataset was used as the sample frame for the survey. This was chosen as the sample frame due to the lack of availability of any record of parents through Child Benefit records because ownership of the databases has moved from the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP) to Inland Revenue. Furthermore, the 2004 study found difficulty in finding parents of children aged 14 years and under who lived within particular geographical areas. This was due to the 2004 survey using a sample population that comprised all households within specified geographical areas rather than households with children aged 14 and under. In addition, the sample had not agreed to participate in further research so attrition was an issue.

viii. One of the specific aims and objectives of the SHS is to permit disaggregation of information both geographically and in terms of population sub-groups (such as families with children or the elderly), and to allow detailed follow-up surveys of sub-samples from the main survey sample, if required. As such, we believed that the SHS could be useful in identifying the parents of children aged 14 years and under and, of those, a sample could be drawn of those agreeing to participate in further research.

ix. One of the greatest benefits of utilising this as a sample frame is that it is up-to-date. The latest annual report was available in July/August 2006 ² (from interviews conducted during 2005), which fitted with the timing of the childcare survey, and it was likely that the sample would be up to date and accurate in its profile. Moreover, the data was robust and representative of parents; households with children could be easily identified; and it was believed that potential respondents were likely to be prepared to participate, having already indicated a willingness to take part in further research.

x. The principal concerns in using the SHS as a sampling frame were to ensure that the sample size was robust and the sample was representative of parents. There is a risk of self-selection because we were targeting only those who had agreed to take part in further research, but self-selection is a potential problem in all survey work, and using the SHS simply allowed us to identify in advance those who would have been most likely to opt out of research and exclude them from the sample frame. It is likely that these individuals would have declined to take part anyway. In fact, using the SHS allowed the opportunity to design a sample that was at least partly adjusted for the self-selection bias that is inherent in all exercises of this nature.

xi. Use of the SHS also allowed those who had children aged from birth to 14 years old (the target group) at the time of the SHS interview to be identified. In the intervening period some households will no longer be in the target group ( e.g. children will have become too old) and others will have entered it ( e.g. children will have been born). Those leaving the target group were allowed for in the addition of 5% to the SHS sample frame to allow for "deadwood."

xii. There is no straightforward way to identify those entering the target group, however, where a household has a child under one, we focused on this child in order to boost the sample of households with children in this age group. In the previous study, finding households with children in the target age group was problematic and, again, using the SHS allowed us to identify these households much more easily (albeit with some limitations at the very oldest and youngest ends of the target group).

xiii. The results of the survey were entered into the statistical software programme SPSS. This software was used to generate the results and undertake cross-tabulations of variables as required. Results relating to relationships between variables have been reported when they are statistically significant, that is, unlikely to be down to chance. ³

xiv. The ONS provides a helpful discussion of standard errors in sample design. ⁴ In general, the size of standard errors is determined by a number of factors, most importantly:

- the sample size
- the variability of the population from which the sample is drawn and
- the sample design.

Standard errors calculated from simple random samples will, typically, differ from those calculated from more complicated sample designs, such as clustered or stratified samples.

xv. The SHS is not a simple random sample ⁵ and uses a method of calculating confidence intervals to take account of the impact of clustering and stratification. As we have taken a stratified random sample from the SHS, we have a stratified random sample of parents with children under 14 from the SHS who agreed to participate in further research (the sample was stratified by local authority and urban-rural classification). Therefore, it is not possible for us to calculate the confidence intervals, ⁶ however, it would not be unreasonable to suggest, as per the ONS guidance, that the factors by which we have stratified the sample would reduce the standard error.

xvi. In discussion with the Scottish Executive and the SHS team, it was agreed to use the SHS confidence limits as a guide to the absolute minimum confidence intervals for the results of this survey. These are shown in Table 2.2 of the Technical Annex Report ( Annex 4). It should be noted that these intervals only tell us which differences are definitely not statistically significant, and we do not have a measure that tells us which differences are statistically significant.

xvii. In general, the data presented in the report are rounded to the nearest percentage point and the bases used for each of the tables and figures are provided in detail. The general rule for reporting is that where there are at least 100 respondents, the results have been taken as being accurate, and where smaller numbers are involved we have flagged this up in the text as requiring caution in interpreting the findings.

Sample Size and Selection

xviii. In order to achieve 1,300 interviews, it was necessary to over-sample from the SHS database in order to allow for deadwood, refusals to participate, households moving on, non-contact etc. Experience dictates that a response rate of 60% is achievable for face-to-face surveys of this type. As such, the decision was taken to draw a sample of 2,100 households in order to achieve 1,300 interviews.

xix. In selecting the sample, it was not possible for the SHS team (comprising the Scottish Executive and Ipsos MORI Scotland) to provide full contact details aligned to survey results. As such, an anonymised data file was provided which allowed a review of the profile of those agreeing to participate in further research for households with children under 14 in terms of their geographic location both in terms of local authority area and utilising the Scottish Executive's six-fold urban rural classification. As such, a sample of 2,100 households was drawn from the database of participants utilising their unique ID number. This was undertaken on a stratified random sampling basis, with sampled households spread across local authority and urban-rural classification. The list of unique ID's sampled was then sent to the SHS survey team who then provided a list of the sampled addresses, again independent of SHS survey results back to the Childcare survey team. This represented our sample for the survey.

xx. However, it became clear during the early stages of fieldwork that the level of attrition in the sample was in the region of 40% due to households moving on, households being un-contactable and, in some instances, refusing to participate. Further exploration of SHS data revealed that a third of 'small family' households and over 40% of lone parent households have lived in their current properties for less than 2 years, meaning that a high proportion of the sample are likely to have moved on, contributing to the high level of attrition.

xxi. As such, the decision was taken to draw an additional sample of 800 households, again, spread across local authority areas. This, however, was only allocated in local authority areas where interviewers were falling short of their quota allocation. As such, additional sample was allocated in 11 of the 32 sampled local authority areas. Overall, the total sample allocated to achieve the desired number of interviews was 2,487 addresses ⁷.

Questionnaire Design and Pilot

xxii. The process of designing the survey questionnaire took as a starting point the questionnaire used in 2004. However, significant amendments were made, in line with the project brief and survey objectives. Following discussions with the Scottish Executive, questions for which the data were deemed to be least useful in 2004 were omitted in the 2006 questionnaire.

xxiii. In turn, the 2004 questionnaire had been based on the one used in 2000, but with some changes to content and order to make the interview run more smoothly. Thus, some of the questions in the 2006 questionnaire can be tracked back to 2000 and/or 2004.

xxiv. Once a draft questionnaire had been agreed, a pilot survey was conducted. Two interviewers conducted 20 interviews. The pilot ensured that:

• The questionnaire structure flowed easily, thereby maintaining the interest of the respondent over the duration of the interview, which was not considered to be onerous;
• The routing of questions was complete and accurate;
• The questions were understood by a range of respondents. It was recognised that the questions had to be coherent and meaningful to people of different levels of ability.

xxv. Following the pilot, a few minor changes were made to the questionnaire in discussion with the Research Advisory Group. These changes involved ensuring appropriate routing was in place (particularly for parents not using childcare); clarifying wording of questions; and making sure pre-coded responses covered the full range of possible responses.

Fieldwork

xxvi. Research Resource was responsible for the quantitative fieldwork element of the project. A team of 19 interviewers attended a briefing session, which was conducted by Research Resource. The briefing session involved full instructions in the conduct of the survey interview.

xxvii. Respondents were selected within households by identifying the individual with either main or shared responsibility for the child(ren) aged 14 years or under in the household. Thereafter, where more than one child aged 14 years or younger resided in the household, a child was selected as the focus of discussion in the interview. Where a household has a child under one, we focused on this child in order to boost the sample of households with children in this age group (because of the limitations of the sample frame discussed above). If there were no children in this age group the child whose birthday fell next within the calendar year was selected.

xxviii. Fieldwork was undertaken throughout November and December 2006, with a small number of interviews in January 2007. In total, 1,304 interviews were completed.

Qualitative Research

xxix. It was considered important to include a qualitative element to the overall project in order to be able to place decisions that parents make about childcare in the context of decisions about work and family life, and gather opinions of various aspects of current childcare arrangements within this context. For example, the previous study revealed that parents arranged their working and social lives around childcare provision, rather than being able to find appropriate childcare to suit their own arrangements. It is important to probe opinions towards this situation in more detail, in order to determine how much choice parents feel they really have in deciding on childcare arrangements or, indeed, whether to use any childcare at all.

xxx. The key to good qualitative research is getting below the superficial responses to the values and emotions that drive behaviour. In this case, we wished to investigate parental motivation in the choice of childcare providers and to explore the real choices that parents have made in relation to their childcare decisions rather than simply assuming that choices are constrained mainly by cost or local provision and availability. Conversely, what the qualitative element does not aim to do is quantify the attitudes and experiences of parents. Quantification and measurement is undertaken by the quantitative survey and this aspect of the research aims to add depth and insight rather than incidence or magnitude. However, where the experience or issue was particularly limited or specific to a geographical area or sub-group of parents, this is reflected in the reporting. It should, however, be noted, that as a qualitative piece of work, no experience is more important than any other as the aim is for breadth and depth rather than measurement or setting of priorities.

xxxi. The qualitative study comprised in-depth interviews with 60 parents recruited from the quantitative survey, where respondents were asked if they would be willing to participate in further in-depth research. Key characteristics of respondents who had agreed to participate in further research were identified from the quantitative data in order to generate a pool of participants across a range of situations and circumstances. The profile of interviews carried out is shown below, with the number of interviews in each category shown in brackets. It should be noted that, in a single interview, the interviewee might fall into more than one category; therefore the sum of interviews by profile exceeds the total number of interviews carried out.

• 'Typical' parents - two earner households or households where one partner stays at home to provide childcare (10)
• Lone parents (11)
• Young parents (6)
• Student parents (6)
• Parents and families living in deprived areas and parents and families living on low incomes (14)
• Ethnic minority parents (3)
• Parents of older children (8)
• Parents and families living in rural areas (12)
• Parents of disabled children or children with special needs and parents of children with special educational needs ( SEN) (7)
• Parents in receipt of child tax credit and parents receiving childcare vouchers (16)
• Parents who use free pre-school education and parents with children who are eligible but do not use pre-school education (14)

xxxii. A comprehensive list of parents, who had taken part in the quantitative survey and who had agreed to take part in further research, was categorised into the groups mentioned above. Between 10 and 15 parents in each category (or combination of categories, i.e. lone, young parents) were purposefully selected and invited to take part in the research. These parents were selected in order to cover a range of experiences of those in different circumstances and geographical areas. Obviously, these groups are not mutually exclusive, as parents may fall into several of these categories ( e.g. young and single parents, rural, SEN and low income). In terms of geography, the sample stretches from the southern Scottish Borders to Orkney with coverage from West to East as well as North to South. Once potential respondents indicated a willingness to be contacted by researchers about the qualitative research, they were contacted to arrange an appointment for an interview in their own homes (unless they expressed a preference for another location). Fieldwork was undertaken both in and out of usual office hours to ensure as many people as possible could participate.

xxxiii. The qualitative research was conducted by Dudleston-Harkins Social Research Ltd, an independent research company, meaning we could ensure complete confidentiality for all participants. The interviews were tape-recorded and fully transcribed with the permission of the respondent and respondents were reassured that no names or any other information potentially allowing their identification would be used in any report or presentation. The findings from the qualitative research are presented in Annex Report 3. Additionally, tapes and transcripts were labelled in a coded way (rather than with respondents names) to ensure confidentiality.

xxxiv. The approach to the qualitative analysis was refined during the fieldwork period to reflect the emerging themes and issues. An analytical framework was developed to ensure that all interviews were analysed in a consistent manner. This framework was based on the topic guide but with flexibility to allow consideration of additional issues raised by respondents. This has facilitated rigorous and comprehensive analysis of the transcripts in a transparent way that will enable the logic of the conclusions drawn from the interviewer evidence to be traced. This type of analysis is sometimes referred to as 'pen and paper matrix analysis'. Both the researcher conducting the interview and an additional researcher read the interview transcripts and completed this framework to help to ensure objectivity when analysing responses. Views and experiences of: the client, before and during the project, the research participants and the research team have been taken into account in writing up the analysis in order to produce findings that are meaningful.

xxxv. The intention of the analysis was to consider the potentially differing views and experiences of the sub-groups identified above (in paragraph xxxi). This analysis also sought to identify any key issues, related to childcare, for all parents regardless of their sub-group, and/or where particular similarities and differences reflect individual preferences rather than particular demographic or economic characteristics.

REPORT STRUCTURE

xxxvi. The remainder of the report is structured as follows:

• Section One considers current usage (and non-usage) of childcare - the section seeks to establish the current levels of use of childcare, by parents of children aged 0-14 years, in terms of the types and quantities of provision that are used.
• Section Two explores parents' reasons for usage and motivating factors - the section investigates parental motivation in the choice of childcare services and identifies any differences among groups of parents.
• Section Three looks at childcare preferences - the section explores the patterns of demand for childcare, looking specifically at when childcare is required and what type is preferred.
• Section Four investigates parents' opinions and knowledge of information sources and changes in childcare arrangements - the section assesses parents' opinions about various aspects of their current childcare arrangements, such as their convenience, quality and cost and what their priorities are in terms of future childcare requirements and any changes in these arrangements. It also seeks to ascertain how much parents know about local childcare services, where they source information about childcare providers and gaps in this information, and looks specifically at parents' use, and awareness of, local childcare services from the Childcare Information Service ( ChIS) website.
• Section Five identifies gaps in provision and constraints - the section identifies and explores 'gaps' that parents have encountered in the current provision of childcare and details of barriers. It explores the choices that parents have made in deciding to return to work/study and the extent to which childcare factors have placed constraints on choices around type of job and working patterns.
• Section Six considers the costs of childcare - the section assesses the financial cost of paid childcare and assesses the impact of government measures to support parents with childcare costs, e.g. child tax credit, childcare vouchers and free pre-school education.
• Section Seven presents our conclusions - the final section summarises the key findings and concludes the report.

xxxvii. In addition to this overarching report there are four Annex Reports, which should be read in conjunction with this report:

• Annex 1 provides comparison of 2006 survey with previous survey(s) - The report is be based on the data contained in the previous report rather than any additional analysis of data from the previous survey data, and focuses on comparison of the 2006 data on parents using childcare with previous surveys.
• Annex 2 presents the 2006 Quantitative Survey Results - The report contains the data tables showing the results from the survey of parents.
• Annex 3 contains the 2006 Qualitative Survey Results - The report presents the results from the qualitative interviews with parents.
• Annex 4 is a Technical Appendix - The report clearly explains the sampling methodology and the statistical significance testing methods employed in the analysis. In addition, it explains the typology of groups used for analysis.

« Previous | Contents | Next »