The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 9 CHILDCARE AND WORK-LIFE BALANCE

9.1 Introduction

Two of the most significant changes in relation to being a parent of a pre-school child has been the increasing propensity of mothers of young children to be in paid work and the parallel expansion of childcare support and service provision. As reported in chapter 2, over half of mothers in both cohorts were in paid work of 16 hours per week or more, most typically in part-time work of less than 35 hours per week. Most mothers also described themselves as 'looking after home and family', pointing to the widespread importance of work-life balance.

Both childcare provision and work-life balance are major foci of government social policy. This chapter will contribute to the evidence base for government about how these policies translate to the everyday experience of families of young children by looking at the use of both formal and informal childcare for both cohorts, and how these are related to parents' employment responsibilities and use of work-life balance policies. It will look at parents' childcare mix, and how that varies by socio-economic circumstances, the cost of childcare, its ease, flexibility and dynamics across sweeps. Childcare preferences and the degree to which those preferences are achieved will also be examined. Finally, the chapter looks at the extent to which parents work in family friendly settings and their employers support satisfactory work-life balance, and how this varies by parents' socio-economic circumstances.

9.1.1 Types of analysis

Parents were asked a range of questions about their regular childcare arrangements for the cohort child. As in sweep 1, a broad definition of childcare was used, covering care provided by anyone other than the main respondent or his or her partner.

The tables in this chapter present the following main types of analysis:

• Comparison of the different answers given by respondents at sweep 2. This includes both straightforward comparisons of the proportions of main respondents giving particular responses, and analysis of the answers by factors that might help explain these answers (for example, the employment status of the respondent or the characteristics of the area they live in).
• Where the same questions were asked at sweeps 1 and 2, comparison of the answers given by the main respondent at both sweeps. This includes comparing the proportion of respondents who gave particular responses at each sweep, analysis of whether the answers given by individual respondents changed or not, and comparison of the characteristics of those whose answers did change and those whose did not.
• Comparison of the responses of parents in the birth cohort with those of parents in the child cohort.

9.2 Use of childcare

At sweep 2, two-thirds of parents in the birth cohort (68%), and virtually all parents in the child cohort (99%) were utilising some form of childcare for the sample child (Figure 9-A). The almost universal childcare use within the child cohort at sweep 2 is largely accounted for by the take-up of free statutory pre-school provision for which all sample children in this cohort became eligible between their first and second interviews. ²⁶ Use of childcare increased in both cohorts between sweeps, although clearly the rise was more dramatic in the older cohort.

Figure 9-A Use of childcare by cohort and sweep

A little over half of families in the birth cohort (54%) and three-quarters in the child cohort had used childcare at both sweeps. Fourteen percent of parents in the younger cohort had not used any form of regular childcare until sweep 2, and 26% had not used any childcare at either sweep. A small proportion (6%) of families in the birth cohort reported childcare use at sweep 1 but not sweep 2.

As at sweep 1, in sweep 2 maternal employment was significantly related to use of childcare. In the birth cohort, almost nine out of ten (87%) families where the child's mother was employed full-time were using some form of regular childcare compared
with just 4 out of 10 (42%) families where the mother was not working. There were no significant differences in the child cohort. Whilst there is a clear link between maternal employment and childcare use, change in patterns of maternal employment between sweeps did not always coincide with a change in overall use of childcare. However, for
a significant minority of families this had occurred (Table 3.1).

Table 9.1 Change in use of childcare by change in maternal employment status: birth cohort

Patterns of broader childcare use across the sample were similar at sweep 2 to those observed at sweep 1. As well as maternal employment, household income, area deprivation and area urban-rural classification were all related to childcare use. At sweep 2, higher income households continued to be more likely than lower income households to use childcare arrangements. In the birth cohort, the gap between the lowest and highest income quartiles at sweep 2 is similar to that observed at sweep 1 (around 25%). Whilst the gap in child cohort has considerably reduced, probably as a result of statutory pre-school provision, a small but significant distinction ( p<0.05) still exists - 97% of families in lowest income quartile were using childcare compared with 99% in highest income quartile.

Figure 9-B Use of childcare by cohort, sweep and household income quartile

9.3 Types of childcare used

Childcare providers were chosen from a list of 18 different provider types covering both formal and informal provision. Respondents provided details of each individual childcare provider that they were using including the provider type (such as grandparents, nursery, etc.) and the number of hours and days per week each provider looked after the child.

9.3.1 Number of different providers

In the birth cohort, 65% of families using childcare used just one childcare arrangement, 30% used two and just 5% used three or more. Families in the child cohort were considerably more likely than those in the birth cohort to have multiple arrangements in place - around 60% were using two or more childcare providers compared with 35% of babies' families. In both cohorts, use of multiple providers was more common at sweep 2 than at sweep 1 (Figure 9-C). The change is particularly significant in the older cohort where the proportion of families using three or more childcare providers almost tripled from 7% to 17% between sweeps. Again, this may be accounted for by the uptake of pre-school provision. It may be that many parents in the older cohort have continued using their existing arrangements, in some form, from sweep 1 and simply 'added' their child's pre-school place onto those arrangements. Of course, it may also be that some parents have 'topped-up' their childcare - that is, they have made alternative, and additional, childcare arrangements to allow their child to attend the funded pre-school place at the particular provider and on the particular days and times which they have been allocated, often to accommodate parental employment. Researchers in the Parents' Access to and Demand for Childcare Survey ( NFO Social Research, 2004) also found that parents of 3-4 year olds used a wider range of childcare providers than parents of younger children. Furthermore, this research also found that a key criticism of statutory pre-school education was the lack of flexibility surrounding the arrangements to which parents were allocated.

Figure 9-C Number of childcare providers by cohort and sweep

Maternal employment had a significant relationship with the number of providers used; amongst parents in the child cohort, around a quarter of those families where the mother was employed (27% full-time, 24% part-time) were using three or more childcare providers compared with 10% where the mother was not employed.

9.3.2 Formal and informal provision

The detailed childcare types were classified into 'formal' and 'informal' categories to allow an initial broad look at how types of provision differ across families.

At sweep 2, of those with regular childcare arrangements, 69% in the birth cohort and 45% in the child cohort, had a least one informal arrangement in place and 53% in the birth cohort and 99% in the child cohort had at least one formal arrangement. Between sweeps 1 and 2, within both cohorts, use of formal provision increased (particularly for the child cohort) and use of informal provision decreased (Figure 9-D). Informal provision was significantly more common, and formal provision less common, among families in the younger cohort than in the child cohort. Despite the almost blanket formal provision among the child cohort at sweep 2 however, it is notable that almost half of these children were also being cared for by an informal provider. Whilst this proportion has reduced since sweep 1, it nevertheless represents a significant minority of the child cohort. This further supports the scenarios suggested above where either parents in the older cohort have continued using existing informal arrangements, in some form, from sweep 1 and added the pre-school place or they have 'topped up' their childcare; that is, some families in the child cohort, particularly those where the mother is employed, have made additional informal childcare arrangements to allow them to make use of the statutory provision. For example, a child may be left with a grandparent who takes the child to his or her pre-school place and collects them afterwards.

At sweep 2, lone parents in both cohorts continue to rely more on informal childcare provision than do parents in couple families. In the child cohort for example, around half (53%) of lone parents using childcare use at least one informal arrangement compared with two-fifths (43%) of parents in couple families. This difference is largely accounted for by higher use among lone parents of ex-partners and other relatives for childcare. There are no significant differences in use of grandparents by family type. No notable variations were observed in informal childcare use amongst other sub-groups in the child cohort.

Figure 9-D Use of formal and informal provision by cohort and sweep

9.3.3 Detailed childcare type

To allow a more detailed examination of the type of childcare provision used by families in the study, the 18 provider types were grouped into seven summary categories: Grandparents, Other informal, Nursery, Childminder, Playgroup, Family Centre and Other Providers.

Table 9.2 Detailed childcare type by cohort

Note: percentages do not add up to 100% as respondents were able to offer details of more than one provider

A small number of dominant providers prevail again in both cohorts at sweep 2 as they did in sweep 1. The child's grandparents and nursery care account for the majority of provision with childminders, playgroups and 'other informal' arrangements accounting for most of the rest. There are several key differences between the cohorts reflecting the difference in the formal/informal balance identified earlier. Care by grandparents and other informal providers was higher in the birth cohort whereas nursery and playgroup care were higher in the child cohort.

Figure 9-E shows the change between sweeps in use of the main provider types for both cohorts. The reduction in the proportion of families in both cohorts using grandparents and other informal provision, and the increase in nursery provision reflects again the general informal to formal progression seen above.

Figure 9-E Use of specific childcare provision by cohort and sweep

At sweep 1, families living in areas of different urban-rural classification were shown to have different patterns in the types of childcare provision used. Use of playgroups and childminders was significantly higher in remote areas than in other areas - particularly among the child cohort, perhaps because of a relative lack of larger formal group-based childcare. Figure 9 F compares the use of different providers at both sweeps amongst families in the birth cohort living in large urban areas with those living in remote rural areas. As the graph shows, in line with the overall trend illustrated in Figure 9-E, the transition between sweeps 1 and 2 saw a drop in the reliance on grandparents in both area types - more so in remote rural areas. This brings the proportion of families using grandparents in remote areas more in line with those in large urban areas. In contrast, the differences evident at sweep 1, which saw higher use of playgroups and childminders in remote rural areas compared with urban areas, continue at sweep 2.

Figure 9-F Use of specific childcare provision by families in large urban and remote rural areas by sweep: birth cohort

9.4 Number of hours and days per week

How many hours, on average, do the cohort children spend in the care of each childcare provider, and over how many days are those hours spread? On average, families in the birth cohort used childcare for less time than did those in the child cohort (birth cohort average of 22 hours per week, child cohort average of 26 hours per week). The average weekly duration of childcare had increased by 10 hours from the comparable figure at sweep 1 in each cohort. Unlike at sweep 1, where patterns of childcare duration were very similar in each cohort, at sweep 2 the patterns were quite different (Table 9.3) with child cohort families being considerably more likely to have arrangements of a longer duration than families in the birth cohort. For example, 32% of child cohort families using childcare had arrangements which totalled more than 30 hours of childcare per week compared with 23% of birth cohort families using childcare.

Table 9.3 Total number of hours per week child is looked after by cohort

Analysis of the number of days is slightly more complicated because more than one childcare arrangement can be used on any one day. However, examination of the maximum number of days that any single arrangement is used for gives some indication of the patterns of childcare use in an average week. The data in Table 9.4 indicates that whilst patterns were similar between cohorts at sweep 1, the situation is quite different at sweep 2 where children in the older cohort are 4 times more likely than those in the younger one to be in a childcare arrangement that is provided over five days. There is no significant change in these patterns amongst the birth cohort between sweeps, although obviously the change between sweeps for the child cohort is significant. The predominance of arrangements over 5 days is another finding that is likely to be related to the uptake of statutory pre-school provision.

Table 9.4 Maximum number of days child is looked after by any single childcare provider by cohort and sweep

9.5 Cost of childcare

Respondents using childcare were asked to estimate their childcare costs on a monthly or weekly basis. If they were not paying for childcare, they were asked to disclose whether childcare was free, i.e. that no-one paid for it, or whether it was paid for by someone else. All costs reported here correspond to childcare for the cohort child only.

Around half of families using childcare in both cohorts were paying something for the provision they were using. For the vast majority of the remainder, childcare was free. Only a small number of families were in a situation where someone else was paying for the care. The balance of families who paid something for childcare versus those for whom childcare was free was more similar between cohorts at sweep 2 than at sweep 1 where parents in the child cohort were significantly more likely to have been paying something towards their childcare provision. As such, between sweeps, there was a reduction in the proportion of parents in the child cohort (from 65% to 54%), and an increase in the proportion of parents in the birth cohort (from 43% to 52%), who paid something towards their child's care.

9.5.1 Average weekly cost

Of those respondents who were paying for childcare in the birth cohort, the average weekly cost of childcare for the cohort child was £67 per week. As in sweep 1, this figure was lower for the child cohort at £43 per week. Each of these figures represents a decrease in childcare costs from sweep 1, down from an average of £76 per week in the birth cohort, and from £49 in the child cohort. The weekly cost varied considerably among the sample reflecting the wide mix of providers and arrangements that have been illustrated above. The data are illustrated in Figure 9-G below. The graph shows that 42% of parents in the child cohort were paying less than £20 per week compared with 15% of parents in the birth cohort. In contrast, 42% of parents in the birth cohort were paying between £51 and £100 per week compared with 24% of parents in the child cohort. This is likely to reflect two main factors: free pre-school provision, and lower nursery fees for children over the age of 3.

Figure 9-G Average cost of childcare for cohort child per week by sample type*

*Base: All who pay for childcare

At sweep 1, the data showed that families in both cohorts living in urban areas were found to pay more on average for childcare than families in any other type of area and that parents in remote rural areas were likely to be paying the least for childcare. As can be seen from the data in Table 9.5, in the birth cohort this trend continued at sweep 2.
In the child cohort however, the average weekly cost of childcare was very similar for parents in large urban and accessible rural areas, and for parents in other urban areas, small accessible towns and remote rural areas, with those living in small, remote towns likely to be paying the least. ²⁷

Table 9.5 Average cost of childcare per week by urban/rural classification

9.5.2 Coping with childcare costs

Respondents who were paying for childcare were also asked how easy or difficult they found it to pay for all the childcare they used, including that arranged for other children in the family. In the birth cohort, 43% said they found it either easy or very easy to pay for their childcare, 31% found it neither easy nor difficult and a 25% found it difficult or very difficult. Parents in the child cohort were significantly less likely to report any difficulty with their childcare costs; 60% found it easy or very easy to meet their childcare costs, a little over one-fifth said it was neither easy nor difficult and just under 1 in 5 (18%) found it difficult or very difficult. Little has changed between sweeps 1 and 2 in the birth cohort with the proportion reporting ease or difficulty very similar at both sweeps. In the child cohort, however, there was an increase of 10% between sweeps in the proportion of parents who found it easy to meet their childcare costs again perhaps reflecting the introduction of free statutory pre-school provision for this cohort.

9.6 Changes to arrangements, degree of choice, ease of arranging childcare and childcare preferences

9.6.1 Changes to arrangements between sweeps

Using information from the previous sweep, it is possible to track the extent to which parents have continued to use childcare arrangements which were in place at sweep 1 and sweep 2, and also to monitor the types of arrangements which were stopped and the reasons why.

In both cohorts, the majority of families using regular childcare at both sweeps continued to use at least one provider at sweep 2 that was being used at sweep 1. This was more likely in the younger cohort where 81% of parents carried at least one arrangement forward compared with 72% in the child cohort. Indeed, in the birth cohort, 71% of parents were still using all of the childcare arrangements they had in place at sweep 1, 10% were using some and 19% were no longer using any. In contrast, 53% of parents in the child cohort carried forward all of their childcare arrangements, 20% some, and 28% none.

The reasons given for ending arrangements were many and wide-ranging although for the most part parents simply said the care was 'no longer needed' (33% in birth cohort, 44% in child cohort). The often very specific reason for ending an arrangement is reflected in the fact that around one-third of parents in both cohorts gave some 'other reason', not covered by the pre-coded responses, for doing so.

For the most part, reflecting trends identified above, informal arrangements were more likely than formal ones to be stopped. Though, in the child cohort, around a quarter of arrangements which did not continue were with private nurseries.

9.6.2 Degree of choice

Respondents were asked to think about the affordable and available options open to them at the time they were arranging childcare for the cohort child and to indicate how much choice they felt they had when they decided to use their main childcare provider.

In the birth cohort, around two-fifths (44%) of parents felt they had a lot or quite a lot of choice, two-fifths (39%) felt they had not very much choice and 15% said they had no choice at all. Responses were similar in the child cohort. As can be seen in Figure 9-H, not only are responses between cohorts similar, but there is also little significant within-cohort change in perceived choice between sweeps.

Figure 9-H Perceived degree of choice by cohort and sweep

9.6.3 Ease of arranging childcare

All parents using childcare were asked how easy or difficult they had found it to make suitable arrangements for the sample child in the last 12 months. Those who reported it to be fairly or very difficult were asked why.

The vast majority of parents in both cohorts using childcare (85%) said they had found it very or fairly easy to make the necessary childcare arrangements. Around one in ten reported it to be difficult or very difficult. The principal reason given for finding it difficult was a lack of childcare places available locally, reported by 60% of parents who found it difficult to arrange childcare in the birth cohort, and 45% in the child cohort. Cost of childcare was also seen to be prohibitive, with just over a third of parents who reported difficulty in making arrangements in both cohorts giving this as a reason.

Some small differences were evident across the sample. For example, parents in higher income households, and those in couple families were slightly more likely to say they found it easy to arrange childcare in the last 12 months than were those in lower income households and lone parents. Differences in area-based provision were not evident in this data as there were no significant differences by urban-rural classification or area deprivation.

9.6.4 Childcare preferences

As in sweep 1, to further gauge parents' views on the availability and choice of childcare open to them, respondents were asked whether they would use a different kind of childcare provider as their main childcare provider for the cohort child, if such a place were to be available and affordable. If the respondent answered 'yes' they were then asked what type of provider they would prefer to be using.

At sweep 2, parents appeared more content with their childcare arrangements than at sweep 1. Just under one in ten (9%) respondents in the child cohort said they would change main provider at sweep 2, compared with around one in five at sweep 1 (18%). The drop is less dramatic in the birth cohort where, at sweep 2, 16% of parents using childcare indicated they wanted to change, compared with 19% at sweep 1. As at sweep 1, parents in more economically disadvantaged circumstances were more likely than wealthier parents to express a desire for change. This trend was more evident in the birth cohort where almost a quarter (23%) of families using childcare in the lowest income group indicated a desire to change providers, compared with a tenth (9%) of families in the highest income group.

Again, as was the case at sweep 1, the type of provision currently in place for the child was also related to the responses to this question. Families using only informal provision were significantly more likely than those using only formal care or a mixture of both to indicate that they would prefer to be using a different main childcare provider. Private nurseries remained the most popular alternative, being selected by 54% of parents in the birth cohort and 38% of parents in the child cohort who wanted a change. Childminders and local authority nurseries remained the next most popular alternatives.

The nature of the preferred providers, and the characteristics of the existing provision among those most likely to want a change, continues to support the trend for a desire to shift from informal to formal types of care which was identified at sweep 1.

9.7 Work-life balance and family-friendly working

9.7.1 Attitudes towards work-life balance

Given the important link between use of childcare and household and/or mother's employment, respondents who were employed (but not self-employed) at the time of the interview were asked a series of questions about their attitudes towards working and caring for children. These consisted of a number of agree-disagree statements. Similar questions were included at sweep 1 but, unlike at that sweep, where respondents were asked mainly about their desire to work more or fewer hours in relation to looking after their children, the statements at sweep 2 explored working parents' feelings about the effect of their employment on their children, and the extent to which having to work impacts on spending time with their family and vice versa. The statements and responses from parents in the birth cohort are displayed in Table 9.6. There were no significant differences between cohorts.

Table 9.6 Attitudes towards work-life balance (birth cohort)

The responses suggest that, generally speaking, most parents who work believe that their employment is not detrimental to their enjoyment of family life nor to their ability to raise or spend time with their child(ren). To explore attitudes further across the sample, two scales were created from the statement responses. The first scale, which combines responses to the first five statements, measures the perceived positive or negative impact of employment on parenting and family life. ²⁸ The second scale, using the last two statements, measures the perceived low or high impact of family responsibilities on employment. ²⁹

As might be expected given the responses in Table 9.6, mean scores on both scales are generally low. In the birth cohort, the average score was 7.5 on the first scale and 2.9 on the second scale; there were no significant differences between cohorts. These low scores indicate that parents believed their employment was beneficial to their family life, and that their family life made little impact on their opportunities and activities at work. Although remaining generally low across the sample, some differences were evident according to different parental employment characteristics as shown in Table 9.7.

Table 9.7 Mean scores on attitudes to work-life balance scores: birth cohort

Those who were working full-time perceived their employment to have a slightly more negative impact than those who worked part-time. The former group were also slightly more likely than the latter to believe that their family life impacted on their activities and opportunities at work. Employment classification, whilst generating statistically significant differences on both scales, had a more notable effect on the second scale. Parents in managerial or professional occupations perceived their family commitments and responsibilities to have slightly more negative impact on their working lives than parents in other occupational classifications. Interestingly, it was respondents in lower supervisory or technical occupations who had the most negative perception of the impact of their employment on their family lives. This may reflect the lower availability of flexible working practices for employees in this occupational classification as illustrated in section 9.7.2 and Figure 9-I below.

9.7.2 Employer family-friendly policies

To further explore the dynamic between employment and childcare we asked respondents who were employed (but not self-employed) whether their employer provided any 'family-friendly' facilities or policies such as subsidised childcare, a workplace creche or nursery, flexible working arrangements, or something else.

Among those respondents who were employed, four out of five in both cohorts reported that their employer offered at least one family friendly working arrangement. Two predominant policies are evident (Table 9.8) - flexible working and time off when a child is sick. Around six out of ten respondents in both cohorts could take advantage of these policies at their workplace.

Table 9.8 Availability of family-friendly policies by cohort

The availability of particular policies varied considerably according to employment classification (Figure 9-I). In general, all forms of family-friendly policy were more widely available to respondents in professional or managerial occupations than to those in other occupational classifications. However, the differences were particularly stark amongst the less common policies. For example, whilst 30% of respondents in managerial or professional occupations could receive childcare vouchers via their employer, only 6% of those in semi-routine or routine occupations could do the same.

Figure 9-I Availability of selected family-friendly facilities by respondent NS-SEC: birth cohort

In both cohorts, 80% of respondents who had at least one family-friendly policy available to use were using it and many were using several. Flexible working was the arrangement most likely to be used by respondents; in each cohort, 96% of those whose employer offered flexible working were using it. Home-working, although of more limited availability than flexible working, was also popular and was used by around 70% of parents in both cohorts for whom it was available (68% in birth cohort, 70% in child cohort). Use of childcare vouchers was less common, used only by a third of parents in both cohorts for whom they were available (36% in birth cohort, 33% in child cohort).

Despite the difference in availability of family-friendly policies by occupational classification there was less difference in the extent to which different respondents used the policies which were available to them. In the child cohort for example, 80% of parents in managerial or professional occupations whose employer offered family-friendly policies were using at least one arrangement compared with 73% of parents in semi-routine or routine occupations.

There was no significant change in respondents' general assessments of their employers' family-friendly rating. As with sweep 1, around two-thirds of parents in both cohorts rated their employer as very or fairly good in terms of allowing family friendly working, with around 15% rating their employer poor or very poor. Of those respondents who were in the same job at both sweeps, around a fifth in both cohorts (23% birth, 22% child) reported a drop in their employer's family friendly rating, a little under a third reported an improvement (30% birth, 32% child) and just under half gave the same rating (47% birth, 46% child).

9.8 Key points

• A little over two-thirds of parents in the birth cohort (68%), and virtually all parents in the child cohort (99%) were utilising some form of childcare for the sample child. The almost 'universal' childcare use within the child cohort at sweep 2 is largely accounted for by the provision of free statutory pre-school education.
• Both cohorts saw an increase in childcare use, in use of multiple providers, and in the average time a child was likely to spend in childcare between sweeps. However, there was a decrease in average childcare costs for the sample child.
• There was a shift from lower use of informal care to greater use of formal care between sweeps. In the birth cohort, 53% of parents using childcare were using a formal provider at sweep 2, up from 40% at sweep 1. Notwithstanding this increase, certain groups amongst the sample continued to rely more heavily on informal provision.
• Despite almost universal formal childcare use in the child cohort, a reasonable proportion of families in the child cohort were also using informal arrangements. Almost half of the older children were also being cared for by an informal provider although this had decreased from sweep 1.
• Differences in patterns of childcare use, and types of provision by area urban-rural classification observed at sweep 1, persist in the sweep 2 data.
• Most parents who work believe that their employment is not detrimental to their enjoyment of family life nor to their ability to raise or spend time with their child(ren), although attitudes varied by employment status and occupational classification.
• 80% of working parents had some form of family friendly working arrangement available to them from their employer. Those parents in managerial and professional occupations tended to have access to a wider range of policies than those in other occupational classifications.

9.9 Conclusion

Growing Up in Scotland uses a broad definition of childcare, meaning any care by someone who is not the main respondent or their partner, and that encompasses both informal and formal care. Childcare use has become ubiquitous, particularly for the child cohort. Two-thirds of the birth cohort and almost all of the child cohort received some kind of childcare. While use of childcare was widespread in sweep 1, it had become even more so by sweep 2. Both cohorts were increasingly likely to use childcare; the baby cohort up from 61% in sweep 1 to 68% in sweep 2, and the child cohort up from 77% in sweep 1 to 99% in sweep 2. The near universal use of childcare by the child cohort is mainly due to high use of free statutory pre-school provision, a key plank of the Government's national childcare strategy.

The use of childcare in the birth cohort (but not the child cohort) is overwhelmingly associated with maternal employment, although parents have other reasons too for using childcare. Families in which the child's mother was in paid work were more than twice as likely to use childcare (about 90%), as families in which the mother was not in paid work (42%). While changing employment patterns did not necessarily result in a changing use of childcare, for many it did. For example, in the small minority of cases where childcare use decreased or stopped, this was associated with mothers' reduced employment. Conversely, cases where childcare was used in sweep 2 but not sweep 1 was associated with increased maternal employment.

Children can expect to spend a large amount of their early childhood in the care of people other than their parents. Those children who experience childcare spend a considerable length of time doing so, on average for about 22 hours per week for the birth cohort and 26 hours per week for the child cohort. The time that children spent in childcare increased between sweeps, on average by about 10 hours per week. While nearly 70% of the birth cohort receive childcare for three days or less, 85% of the child cohort receive childcare on 5 or more days.

Patterns of childcare use in this sweep were broadly similar to those found in sweep 1, and were found to vary not only according to maternal employment, but also by household income and type of geographic area. Higher income groups were more likely to use childcare than lower income groups, the gap in the birth cohort being especially pronounced (57% of the lowest income quartile compared to 84% of the highest income quartile used childcare, a slightly bigger gap than found in sweep 1). As also found in sweep 1, families living in remote areas were more likely to use playgroups and child minders than others, possibly because of a lack of availability of formal childcare.

In the birth cohort, the norm was to use a single childcare provider (in 65% of cases), most typically grandparents (60%) or a nursery or creche (37%). In contrast, a childcare mix of multiple providers was much more common for the child cohort (in about ²/ ₃ of cases), although 93% were in nursery or a creche. For both cohorts, grandparents remain an important source of informal childcare, although they provide care in fewer cases than in sweep 1 ( e.g. 50% of the child cohort families used grandparents for childcare in sweep 1, compared to 37% in sweep 2). For both cohorts, the use of multiple providers had become more common than in sweep 1, and the change was particularly marked in the child cohort where the number of families using three or more providers nearly trebled between sweeps, from 7% to 17%. The use of multiple childcare providers is particularly associated with maternal employment and raises issues about how transitions between providers are managed.

In examining the makeup of the particular childcare packages used, childcare provision was classified as being either informal or formal. Over half of those with regular childcare arrangements had at least one informal arrangement and over half had at least one formal arrangement. Formal childcare use increased between sweeps, and informal childcare use decreased, although informal childcare was still more common than formal for the birth cohort and more common in lone parent families than in couple families in both cohorts. Although almost all of the child cohort were in some formal childcare, about half of them also had some kind of informal childcare too, most typically by grandparents (37%). This underlines the importance of informal care even when formal care is used and the need to understand the interrelationship between them.

About half of families using childcare paid something towards its cost, a slightly higher proportion of the birth cohort and a slightly lower proportion of the child cohort than in sweep 1. For the great majority of the rest, childcare was free (rather than having its cost met by others). The weekly cost of childcare for the study child varied considerably, with an average cost of £67 per week for all. The cost was higher for the birth cohort (nearly 60% of whom paid over £50 p.w.) than for the child cohort (36% of whom paid over £50 p.w.). Parents living in large urban areas had higher average costs for childcare than parents living elsewhere. About one-quarter of birth cohort parents found it difficult or very difficult to pay for childcare, compared with 18% of the child cohort parents.

Choice and flexibility in childcare are seen by many parents as necessary to meet their childcare needs and enable them to respond to work opportunities. Despite the considerable expansion in the availability and use of childcare, most parents did not think they had a great deal of choice in their decision about their main childcare provider; with slightly less perceived choice than in sweep 1; 56% of parents in the birth cohort and 52% of parents in the child cohort said they had 'not very much' or 'no' choice here. Compared to the picture of limited choice, there is widespread reported ease of arranging childcare; 85% of parents said they found it very or fairly easy. Difficulties here were associated with a lack of local provision or prohibitive cost. When asked if their childcare preferences differed from the arrangements they had in place, more parents were satisfied with their own arrangements than in sweep 1 and only a small minority in both cohorts expressed a wish to change them. However, there was less satisfaction with current arrangements for the lowest income group, one quarter of whom wished to change providers if they were affordable and available. Users of informal childcare exclusively were also more likely to express a preference for a shift from informal to formal care, most often to private nurseries.

Some of the need for flexibility and choice in childcare derives from how much flexibility parents have in the workplace to balance work and family responsibility. Parents who were employees were asked about their attitudes towards work-life balance, and most considered that work had positive benefits for family life, not causing them to lose out on family activities, making them better parents and more appreciative of family time. Most also considered that their family responsibilities did not have an adverse impact on their work in terms of enjoyment, missed opportunities, or creating more work pressure. These patterns varied slightly by whether parents worked full-time or part-time, or by social class; parents in managerial and professional employment were more likely than those in semi-routine and routine employment to report working in a family-friendly workplace. About four out of five respondents who were employed reported that their employers had at least one family friendly working arrangement, mainly flexible working time and being able to take time off when a child was ill. Most respondents were able to take advantage of these policies.

For young children in Scotland, the families they live with are increasingly characterised by having a mother in paid work, most typically part-time, who satisfactorily juggles home and work with no great detriment to either, and by having their own care shared between their parents and others (Gillis, 1996). For children living in couple families, the 'breadwinner model' of the family has been increasingly replaced by the 'dual earner model' of a family (demonstrated in section 2.3.1). There is also a trend to extend childcare beyond the nuclear family to the extended family and community and the socialising of childcare also shows a movement from informal to more formal types of care as children get older, with near-universal participation of older pre-school children in childcare of some kind.

« Previous | Contents | Next »