Childcare Sufficiency Assessment...1 Childcare Sufficiency Assessment: Addressing the Action Plan...

Childcare Sufficiency Assessment

July 2011

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1

Purpose of this report 1

What does the report contain? 1

Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (CSA) 1

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 1-2

2 KEY FINDINGS 3

3 TYPES OF CHILDCARE 5

4 DEMOGRAPHICS OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE 7

Age of Residents 7

Geographical Distribution of 0 to 4 year-olds 8

Estimated Geographical Distribution of 5 to 14 year-olds 9

Estimated Geographical Distribution of 15 to 19 year-olds 10

Sex 11

Ethnicity 11

Schools – residents by education provision 12

5 CHANGING POLICIES: FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE CHILDCARE PROVISIONS AND NEEDS

13

6 PROVIDING ADEQUATE PLACES FOR ALL GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS

14

Distribution of Childcare Settings 15

Distribution of Childcare Settings and Places 16-23

Postcodes in Kensington and Chelsea 24

School-based Play 25

7 ADDRESSING THE GAP IN CHILDCARE IN THE EARL’S COURT AREA

26

8 ENSURING A VARIETY OF PROVISION FOR ALL AGE GROUPS

27

9 INCLUSION 28

Looked After Children 28

Childcare for Disabled Children 28-30

Childcare Needs of Parents and Carers Looking for Work 30

10 MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING QUALITY STANDARDS 31-32

11 IMPROVING FLEXIBILITY OF PROVISION AND OPENING TIMES

32-33

12 AFFORDABILITY 33-36

13 SUSTAINABILITY 37

14 SUPPORT 37-38

15 CONSULTATION 38

16 PARENT SURVEY 39-53

17 PROVIDER SURVEY 53-69

18 FOCUS GROUP 70-74

19 RECOMMENDATIONS 74

APENDICES 75-88

1

1 INTRODUCTION Purpose of Information in the Report 1.1 Section 11 of the Childcare Act 2006 requires that all Local Authorities

undertake an assessment of the sufficiency of childcare within their local area as a first step to securing sufficient childcare for parents. From 1 April 2008, all Local Authorities were given the statutory duty, under section 6 of the Act, to secure childcare sufficient for parents to work or undertake education and training leading to work. To fulfil this duty, Local Authorities were tasked with facilitating and shaping their childcare markets to be responsive to the needs of parents in terms of the sufficiency, quality, accessibility and sustainability of childcare.

What does the Report Contain?

1.2 The Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (CSA) represents a framework with which Local Authorities, working with childcare professionals, childcare settings and local partners, gather the evidence, data and information necessary to facilitate and shape their childcare market. It is intended as a tool that will help Local Authorities identify where the gaps in the market exist, and through consultation with parents, communities and employers, plan how such gaps might be addressed (DCSF 2009).

Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (CSA)

1.3 The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea first conducted the

Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (CSA) in 2008. In 2009, The action plan was reviewed in an evaluation, ‘Childcare Sufficiency Assessment: Addressing the Action Plan, (AAP 2009)’,1 which addressed the original action plan in terms of whether the assessment was sufficient, and examined the nature of supply and demand in the local childcare market. The Childcare Sufficiency Assessment Refresh (2010),2 sought to re-evaluate progress on achieving the action plan in preparation for a full CSA.

1.4 This report is a full detailed examination of childcare supply and demand

in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC). It provides an evidence base to assist with the planning of services to meet local needs and how needs might be most effectively met within available resources.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 1.5 It is the duty of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to manage

the childcare market so that it is affordable, accessible and ensure the provision is secure, including out-of-school and holiday care for older children. Childcare provision is inclusive and takes into consideration the needs of children at risk of exclusion. It does so by providing a core service and a range of support services to cater to the needs of the local community.

1 Childcare Sufficiency Assessment: Addressing the Action Plan CL/02/09 2 Childcare Sufficiency Assessment Refresh CL/05/2010

2

1.6 We support the integration of children into mainstream provision where appropriate. The families and children who have differing needs receive support from Early Years and Play Services, which in turn, carries out assessments to ensure needs are met when using the services. Additional support needs are made available through relevant channels.

1.7 We work closely with stakeholders when deciding on and undertaking

activities to promote childcare that is appropriate and inclusive by providing relevant training in equality and diversity issues. We achieve this by forming strong partnerships with parents, practitioners, children's centres, social care, schools, the Primary Care Trust, voluntary organisations and other relevant agencies, which meet to monitor and review the services. We aim to increase children's participation and input through a range of forums and committees.

1.8 In addition, each children’s centre and playcentre has a local steering

group where parents, practitioners and members of the community meet regularly to monitor and review the service offer.

3

2 KEY FINDINGS

Policy Changes 2.1 Changes to funding streams, which feeds into childcare in the borough,

savings to be obtained in the current economic climate, as well as income threshold on entitlements to tax credit and childcare vouchers, will all have a profound effect on childcare provision and needs. Some of which have yet to be determined.

Providing a variety of provision for all 2.2 Overall, Private Nurseries (1,419) followed by Playcentres (1,031) hold

the greatest number of places.

2.3 The ratio of children and provision in SW1 (14.3%) and SW5 (23.2%) falls below the borough’s average (39.1%). In 2011, SW1 has seen its provision decrease by 60% (down from 60 places to 40), whereas the number of children has increased by 37.9% (up from 174 to 280).

2.4 In SW5 although the ratio of children and provision (23.2%) is still low, it has increased in comparison to the previous year (16.1%). The number of children has also increased by 11.2 % (up from 758 to 854), as has provision (38.4%, up from 122 places to 198).

Early Years 2.5 A new service has been designed for parents of early year’s children. The

Early Years and Play Service identified a gap during the summer holidays; parents removed their children from all day care and instead used playcentres, proving to be more cost effective. This new service prepares children for school and provides convenience for parents through affordability. As part of the borough’s commitment to children with inclusion

Childcare for Disabled children 2.6 Childcare for disabled children is available through a number of avenues

including the St Quintin Centre. The centre provides a range of services for children and parents. So far, over 120 children have registered with the centre.

Childcare for those out of work 2.7 Childcare is still a barrier for people out of work; the greatest being

affordability, closely followed by waiting times. The local Jobcentre Plus always refers customers to the Family Information Service (FIS) for information regarding childcare provision and options.

4

Consultation 2.8 In 2010, 44% of parents surveyed stated they received no support

towards the cost of childcare. This may be due to the average annual income in the borough, exceeding £40,000, which is relatively high.

2.9 Childcare vouchers (21%) were the most used method of support, 18.7% of respondents received childcare support through Working Tax Credits and 6% received a free place for their child. The current assessment found families in receipt of the childcare element of Child Tax Credit has increased.

2.10 Parents who work part-time are more likely to use childminders and

children’s centres, whereas those working full-time are more likely to use centres and out of school clubs (playcentres). Over two-thirds of providers (66.7%) stated part-time places as the major type of occupancy at their setting.

2.11 In terms of satisfaction, 77% of parents stated they were ‘very happy’ with childminders, whilst children’s centres (57%) received the lowest level of being ‘very happy’. However, the focus groups conducted (2011) found parents held a preference for children‘s centres over nurseries and childminders.

2.12 According to providers, children aged 8 and above are the most costly and least is the age 2-3 group. Independent schools have the highest costs and childminders represent the lowest.

5

3 TYPES OF CHILDCARE 3.1 Childcare providers care for at least one individual child and can work on

domestic or non-domestic premises.3 A childcare provider on non-domestic premises works with at least three other people. For the purpose of the report the types of childcare analysed are:

Childminders 3.2 Childminders look after children under 12 years-old in their own home.

They can look after up to six children under eight years-old, although no more than three of those must be aged under five. They are flexible and may work evenings and weekends.

Day nursery 3.3 Day nurseries provide care and learning activities for children from birth

to five years-old. They are usually open from 7.00 am to 7.00 pm, but may vary. They offer full or part-time places and some offer early drop-offs or late pick-ups.

Playcentres 3.4 Schools may offer an extended range of services for pupils and their

families. This could include before and after-school childcare and activities like breakfast, homework and sports clubs.

3.5 Breakfast clubs provide a healthy meal and a safe place for children to be

until school starts. Carers will take children to school in time for registration or, if based at a child's school, will look after them until lessons start.

3.6 After-school play is often based on school premises, but it can also be

based at adventure playgrounds or community parks. The schools and the local authority run them.

3.7 Holiday playcentres are usually offered as part of a school's extended

services; local authority or voluntary organisations can run them. They offer a wide range of play activities during the school holidays except Christmas.

Pre-School/Playgroup 3.8 Pre-schools and playgroups provide part-time play and early learning for

under five. Three and four year-olds can get 15 hours of weekly free early years education with these providers. They usually run during term time, every day or for several days a week.

3Ofsted (2011) Domestic premises mean any premises mainly used as private dwellings. Non-domestic premises are premises that are not someone’s home

6

Private Nursery 3.9 Privately owned nurseries provide full-day or sessional early years

education/childcare and cater for children from aged under 3 to school age. Some will take children from birth.

Alternative 3.10 Adventure Play is offered at four sites across the borough. There are

open access adventurous play within the community for children and young people aged 6 to 16 years of age and are open at weekends with Little Wormwood Scrubs operating a Sunday provision.

3.11 The playgrounds are open throughout holiday periods, funded through

the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s commissioning round of funding with external funding. A voluntary committee manages them except for Little Wormwood Scrub and Wiltshire Close, which are managed by the Play Service.

3.12 Flashpoint Centre Play, based in the World’s End area, offers community

play for the six and above age range and is open after-school, on Saturdays and during school holidays for children and families.

3.13 The provision provided by Adventure and Community Play is not classed

as childcare. 3.14 Play Rangers provide a structured play for children across the borough,

although their work cannot be defined as childcare.

3.15 Play Rangers are fully trained and CRB checked play workers who drop-in to parks, estates and open playable spaces in Kensington and Chelsea to encourage impromptu play and organise games. They operate across the borough, offering a range of fun activities in sports, games, arts and crafts. During special events and activities in the holidays, Play Rangers work in a range of sites across the borough.

7

4 DEMOGRAPHICS OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Age of Residents 4.1 Kensington and Chelsea has a far lower 0-19 population than Central

London and nationally.

4.2 Residents aged 5-10 (31.2%) represent the greatest proportion of age groups; the 0-4 aged residents follow with 28.9%. In comparison to London (28.3%) and nationally (27.8%), the 5-10 aged residents in the borough are higher in proportion. See Table 1 and figure 1 below.

4.3 Kensington and Chelsea have lower proportions of 0-4 year-olds than

London, but higher proportions when compared to England. Table 1 Age – Resident Children and Young people age 0-19 years

No. % No. % No. %

0 to 4 9,670 28.9% 223,232 33.2% 3,196,075 25.8%

5 to 10 10,445 31.2% 190,339 28.3% 3,449,720 27.8%

11 to 15 7,495 22.4% 135,926 20.2% 3,058,637 24.7%

16 to 19 5,902 17.6% 122,666 18.2% 2,683,063 21.7%

Total 33,512 100.0% 672,163 100.0% 12,387,495 100.0%

EnglandAge

Kensington and Chelsea

Central London

Figure 1

8

Map 1: Geographical Distribution of 0 to 4 year-olds registered with Kensington and Chelsea GPs4

4 The 2001 census data does not provide an adequate measure of a cohort of children who were effectively born after that date, this study uses data on ‘live births’ obtained from GP records (provided by Kensington and Chelsea PCT)

9

Map 2: Estimated Geographical Distribution of 5 to 14 year-olds, by ward

4.4 There are far fewer 5-14 year-olds in Kensington and Chelsea than the

rest of London or England; this is due to net outward migration after birth.

4.5 North Kensington (W10 and W11) and Holland Park have the highest

proportion of children aged 5-14, and a higher than average rate compared to London and England. Most other wards within the borough have among the lowest rates in London, in particular Earl’s Court and Pembridge.

10

Map 3: Estimated Geographical Distribution of 15 to 19 year-olds, by ward

4.6 The distribution of 15-19 year-olds in the borough is similar to that of 5-

14 year-olds, with rates much lower than London and half the rate of England.

11

4.7 In the north of the borough, there is a higher concentration of 15-19 year-olds, particularly in the wards of St Charles, Notting Barns and Golborne. There is very high concentration of 15-19 year-olds in the Courtfield ward (Old Brompton Road area), however, this relates to a university hall of residence.

Sex 4.8 The proportion of 0-19 aged males and females in Kensington and

Chelsea is similar (50.5% and 49.5%, respectively), this is also comparable with London and nationally. See table 2 below.

Table 25

No. % No. %

Kensington and Chelsea 17,164 50.5% 16,805 49.5%

Central London 333,488 50.4% 328,639 49.6%

England 6,335,459 51.2% 6,028,983 48.8%

Male Female

Figure 2 – Ethnicity

4.9 The majority of Kensington and Chelsea’s 0-15 population is from a

‘white’ background (69.3%); this proportion is higher than that of London as a whole (56.3%) and is lower than the national average (83.3%).

4.10 Kensington and Chelsea has a larger proportion (4.4%) of 0-15 year-olds from ‘other’ backgrounds when compared to London (2.8%) and nationally (1.2%).

4.11 The proportion of 0-15 year-olds from a ‘mixed’ background (9.9%) is slightly higher than the average for London (71.2%) and nationally (4.4%). See figure 2.

5 Source Office for National Statistics, 2009 mid-year estimates

12

Schools – residents by education provision 4.12 There is an estimated 12,268 children of primary school age living in

Kensington and Chelsea, 39% attend a borough primary school (4,733). An estimated 7,094 children of secondary school age, live in Kensington and Chelsea, of these 21% attend a borough secondary school (1,490). See figure 3.

Figure 3

4.13 Primary school aged residents represent a higher proportion of children attending local schools than those of secondary school age (39% compared to 21%). 3% of primary aged residents attended maintained schools out of the borough, compared to 21% at secondary.

4.14 The proportion of local children attending private/other education is considerably higher than the average England and London rate of 7%.The proportion of primary and secondary aged residents attending private/other education is similar (58% and 56%, respectively).

4.15 The proportion of local children attending borough schools has remained

steady from 2007 to 2011, with nearly a third attending borough schools. See table 3 below.

Table 3 - Children and Young people attending borough schools

% % % % %RBKC maintained schools 31% 30% 29% 32% 33%Alternative provision n/a n/a 1% 1% 1%Other boroughs maintained schools 10% 11% 11% 10% 10%Private/other * 60% 59% 60% 58% 57%Population ** 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%* Private/other is the difference between the population and the maintained schools.

** Population figures are derived from the ONS mid-year estimates

2010 2011All Pupils (4-15)

2007 2008 2009

13

5 CHANGING POLICIES: FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE CHILDCARE PROVISIONS AND NEEDS

5.1 The Comprehensive Spending Review (2010) has resulted in a number of

changes in policies, which will affect future provision and need for childcare in the borough. Some of the effects of the review have already transpired.

Grants 5.2 As of April 2011, the Early Intervention Grant (EIG) replaces number of

grants including the ring fenced Sure Start Early Years and Childcare Grant (SSEYCG), the Every Child a Talker initiative (ECAT) and Graduate Leader Fund (GLF). It is almost 11% less than previous funding streams, in 2010-11 the total funding to councils to fund these services was £2,483m and has decreased to £2,222m (2011-12).6

5.3 The grant is not ring-fenced enabling authorities to target the resources

at areas of most need, resulting in investment in early intervention and prevention solutions to produce long-term savings and better results for children, young people and families.

Changes to Tax Credits and Childcare Vouchers 5.4 There are a number of changes to Working Tax Credits (WTC), Child Tax

Credits (CTC) and Childcare vouchers. For example, income thresholds have decreased as a result, tax credit entitlements will decrease as income rises. Childcare costs through the childcare element have been reduced with maximum payments introduced depending on the number of children in the household.

5.5 Employees in receipt of childcare vouchers, the first £55 a week is free from both tax and NICs for basic taxpayers. However, it will be reduced for higher and additional taxpayers.

Increase in prices 5.6 As a result of grants lost and the need for savings, the cost of play

provision supplied by borough is to increase. Fee exemptions are to be discontinued for those in receipt of benefits and in its place, a subsidised amount will be offered.

Impacts yet to be measured 5.7 There are a number of aspects, which have yet to be measured as result

of the current economic climate, cuts and savings to be made. The state of the economy has caused people to be made redundant or having to reduce their working hours. These changes may change the childcare needs of users. We may find that there is a decrease in take-up as a result of changes to childcare costs and a reduction in tax credit entitlements, or even an increase in part-time places. In addition, there may be a quota on subsidised places.

6 Department of Education (2011), Early Intervention Grant (EIG)

14

6 PROVIDING ADEQUATE PLACES FOR ALL GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS 6.1 The CSA 2008 identified that there were sufficient numbers of childcare

places available to parents across most of the borough, whilst highlighting the lack of places where population density was higher. The CSA 2009 went on to document how the refurbishment of Earl’s Court Nursery would meet local demand. The previous CSA (2010) assessed the relationship between supply and demand (the number of childcare places offered in relation to the number of pre–school children living in the borough) in terms of the provision provided by Early Years and Play Services.

6.2 This study also seeks to re-evaluate the relationship between supply and

demand, in terms of the provision provided by Early Years and the Play Service providers.

15

Map 4: Distribution of Childcare Settings

16

Map 5: Distribution of Childcare Settings and Places

17

18

19

20

Maps above indicate the geographical position of childcare settings in the borough.

21

Table 4 Distribution of Children aged 0 to 4 and Childcare settings Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: North

Children Provision Children Provision

Age No. No.

0 284 3291 340 3942 317 3683 326 3364 324 339Provision Type No. No.Childminder 84 33Day nursery 233 279Playcentres 395 224Pre-School Playgroup 43 16Private Nursery School 78 419

Total 1591 833 1766 97152.4% 55.0%

W10 W11

Notting Hill & Holland Park North Kensington

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: Central

Children Provision Children Provision Children ProvisionAge No. No. No.0 100 283 401 103 305 292 127 272 303 127 258 274 128 263 25Provision Type No. No. No.Childminder 6 12 0Day nursery 0 15 0Playcentres 0 56 0Pre-School Playgroup 22 19 0Private Nursery School 126 296 50

Total 585 154 1381 398 151 5026.3% 28.8% 33.1%

W14 W8

Notting Hill Notting Hill, Kensington & Holland Park

West Kensington, Kensington, Olympia

& Holland Park

W2

22

Table 4 continued

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: South

Children Provision Children Provision Children ProvisionAge No. No. No.0 166 169 431 185 222 562 173 143 683 165 144 584 165 154 55Provision Type No. No. No.Childminder 8 3Day nursery 45 113Playcentres 108 0 40Pre-School Playgroup 0 0Private Nursery School 37 116

Total 854 198 832 232 280 4023.2% 27.9% 14.3%

SW1SW7

Knightsbridge, Sloane Square &

Kings Road

South Kensington & Knightsbridge

Earls Court

SW5

Children Provision Children Provision Children ProvisionAge No. No. No.0 203 178 17951 223 212 20692 169 203 18703 181 193 18154 176 193 1822Provision Type No. No. No.Childminder 32 22 200Day nursery 79 95 859Playcentres 122 86 1031Pre-School Playgroup 24 33 157Private Nursery School 193 104 1419

Total 952 450 979 340 9371 366647.3% 34.7% 39.1%

SW10 SW3

West Brompton & Chelsea

Chelsea, Brompton & Knightsbridge

Total

6.3 Table 4 (above) indicates that in terms of children, overall provision within the borough is limited with 39.1%, although an increase from 31.5% (2010),are likely to access a place in childcare provisions. In terms of geographical location, the best-served areas are W11 (55%), W10 (52.4%) and SW10 (47.3%), while the worst SW1 (14.3%), SW5 (23.2%) and W14 (26.3%) each fall beneath the borough average.

23

Table 5

2010 2011 Trajectory % Change 2010 2011 Trajectory % Change 2010 2011 Trajectory Difference*W2 114 151 24.5% 54 50 -8.0% 47.4% 33.1% -14.3%W8 1120 1381 18.9% 239 398 39.9% 21.3% 28.8% 7.5%W10 1706 1591 -7.2% 575 833 31.0% 33.7% 52.4% 18.7%W11 1628 1766 7.8% 706 971 27.3% 43.4% 55.0% 11.6%W14 518 585 11.5% 148 154 3.9% 28.6% 26.3% -2.2%SW1 174 280 37.9% 64 40 -60.0% 36.8% 14.3% -22.5%SW3 844 979 13.8% 195 340 42.6% 23.1% 34.7% 11.6%SW5 758 854 11.2% 122 198 38.4% 16.1% 23.2% 7.1%SW7 637 832 23.4% 270 232 -16.4% 42.4% 27.9% -14.5%SW10 841 952 11.7% 257 450 42.9% 30.6% 47.3% 16.7%Total 8340 9371 11.0% 2630 3666 28.3% 31.5% 39.1% 7.6%

*Difference is obtained by subtracting 2010 figures from 2011 figures

PostcodeAge 0-4 Provision Proportion accessing a place

6.4 The likelihood of children accessing a place in childcare has risen by

7.6%, this is especially so for the north with an increase of 30.3% (18.7% in W10 and 11.6% in W11). However, the greatest decrease has been in SW1 (22.5%), both SW7 (14.5%) and W2 (14.3%) follow.

6.5 The number of children aged 0-4 has risen by 11%, when compared to the previous year (from 8340 in 2010 to 9371 in 2011, respectively). All areas in the borough have seen an increase excluding W10 (a 7.2% decrease). SW1 has greatest increase with over a third (37.9%), followed by W2 (24.5%) and SW7 (23.4%).

6.6 In comparison to 2010, provision in the borough has increased by 28.3% (from 2630 in 2010 to 3666 in 2011, respectively). SW10 and SW3 have seen the greatest increases (42.9% and 42.6%, respectively), closely followed by W8 (39.9%). SW1 has seen the greatest fall in childcare provision by more than half (60%), SW7 (16.4%) follows. See table 5 above.

24

Map 6: Postcodes in Kensington and Chelsea

25

School-Based Playcentre 6.7 Childcare for children aged 4.5 through to 13 is provided by Play

Services’ playcentres, which operate in 15 schools across the borough, they provided play, childcare and learning for 2,191 children in 2009-10.

6.8 Because this provision is school based, it can be expected that families

whose children attend schools, which host playcentres, will take a significant number of these childcare places. 88.7% of users attended the same school as the playcentres, whilst 10.5% used playcentres, which differed from their schools and 0.8% attended schools outside the borough.7

6.9 In 2009-10, 85.7% (1,878) of service users resided in the borough. Of

these, the majority came from the north of the borough (33.8% were from W10 and 35.3% from W11). Figure 4(below) reveals the residency by postcode of those children who attended the school-based playcentres in 2009-10.8

Figure 4

7 School-based, Adventure and Community Play April 2009 - March 2010, Community Learning Monitoring Report 8 School-based, Adventure and Community Play April 2009 - March 2010, Community Learning Monitoring Report

26

7 ADDRESSING THE GAP IN CHILDCARE IN THE EARL’S COURT AREA

7.1 The CSA 2008 identified a gap in childcare in the Earl’s Court area of the

borough. Refurbished since 2009, the Earl’s Court Nursery Centre intended to have childcare for over 40 places and for children aged 18 months to five years. The CSA 2010 stated provision had dropped to 30 full-time places and these were for two to five year-olds.

7.2 The current assessment found that provision at the Earl’s Court setting

has now increased childcare to 45 full-time places for children aged 18 months to five years.

7.3 For children aged five and over in the Earl’s Court area, there is the St

Cuthbert with St Matthias CE Primary School playcentre, which offers school-based play. It provided play, childcare and learning for 150 children in the 2009-10 period. On average, these children attended the Playcentre 6.4 times per month9, an increase compared to 5.5 in 2008-09.

7.4 During the summer holidays 201010, Bousfield Primary School offered school-based play to 340 children, who on average attended 8.3 times.

7.5 As part of the current assessment, parents and carers who use childcare provisions in the north and south were consulted through focus groups, one in each area.

7.6 Though there is still a gap in the area and provision is limited, the discussion with participants in the south highlighted the difference in attitudes towards specific childcare. Overall, participants prefer children centres to both nurseries and childminders, this is especially so for those in the south. Parents and carers in the north are more like to use informal childcare, i.e. family or friend to fill gaps where formal childcare did not meet their needs. However, those in the south perceived it as being a burden to others. The majority of participants did not have family nearby because they are from outside London; they still would not ask friends for help. There are 845 children aged 0 to 4 in the Earl’s Court area (SW5), table 6 shows provision excluding playcentres, including the accessing from a place.

Table 6

Registered places

Proportion benefiting

from a placeType No. No. %

Childminder 2 8 0.9%

Day nursery 1 45 5.3%Private Nursery School 1 37 4.3%Total 4 90 10.5%

Provision

9 School-based, Adventure and Community Play April 2009 - March 2010, Community Learning Monitoring Report 10 Summer in the Borough, Holiday Play Monitoring Report, Summer 2010

27

8 ENSURING A VARIETY OF PROVISION FOR ALL AGE GROUPS 8.1 The CSA 2009 mentioned the Helping Hands programme in response to

this question. Helping Hands are a group of young people, who assist at playcentres by supporting playworkers in the delivery of the programme in the play settings. There were around 10-15 young people involved in the scheme.

8.2 In 2010, the Play Service trained 24 Helping Hands volunteers aged 8-

15. Four secured the Junior Achievement Award and six achieved the Youth Challenge Award. 23 young people from Kensington and Chelsea aged 16-17 were employed as playwork trainees.

8.3 This review found provision to entail:

54 childminders offering 200 places (more than 50% of which are located in W10 and W11)

18 day nurseries offering 859 places

20 out-of-school places offering 1031 places

7 pre-school play groups offering 157 places

32 private nursery schools offering 1419 places

15 school-based playcentres offering 788 school-based play, childcare and learning places term-time (in 2009-10 these were predominantly used by 5 to 12 year-olds)

21 school-based Breakfast Clubs offering 430 places to school aged children

Between four and six school- based playcentres offering holiday provision for between 440 and 577 children per day from 8am until 6pm during each school and half-term holiday with the exception of Christmas and New Year.

Early years has provided a ‘mobile crèche’ scheme to support parents undertaking a range of training, education and skills programmes in the borough. A total of 522 crèches took place in 2010/11 each providing care for an average of five children. The mobile crèche service will continue in 2011-12.

28

9 INCLUSION

Looked After Children 9.1 The CSA 2010 found the Royal Borough to be responsible for a total of

165 LAC, see table 7 for breakdown by age. Table 7 – LAC by age 2010

Age 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-17 Total No. of Children 25 23 66 51 165 % of Children 15% 14% 40% 31% 100%

9.2 The current assessment found the figures have changed with a 22%

decrease in numbers compared to previous year, see table 8. Table 8 – LAC by age 2011

Age 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-17 Total In borough 5 2 6 15 28 Out of borough 17 13 39 32 101 No. of Children 22 15 45 47 129 % of Children 17% 12% 35% 36% 100%

9.3 Of the 28 LAC aged 0–10, five 0-5 and two 6-10 year-olds live in the

borough, the remainder live outside. Childcare for Disabled Children 9.4 In the borough, 421 children have a statement of special educational

needs (295 between the ages of 6 and 14 years). Of these 137 are known to the Disabled Children’s Team.

9.5 Childcare for disabled children is available through a number of avenues.

These include, children’s centres, breakfast and after school clubs, mainstream playcentres, specialist playcentres, homecare, a direct payment, the St Quintin Centre for Disabled Children and specialist overnight short breaks.

9.6 The main sources of information about childcare opportunities are

through the Family Information Service (FIS) and St Quintin Centre, which employs a D-Catch worker who provides support to enable parents/carers to return to work or study. They can provide advice on training opportunities, childcare for specific events (e.g. short training courses or interviews) and will broker long-term childcare arrangements for a parent entering or already in employment. The D-Catch worker supported 10 families in 2010-11.

9.7 The D-Catch project is designed to help parents and carers of children

with disabilities access childcare in the borough. It provides support to enable children to access the childcare services available, as well as

29

additional help and advice for parents and carers seeking work or training.

9.8 £60,000 per annum has been made available to the eight children’s

centres in the borough to enable them to purchase equipment and provide additional staff to support disabled children. There are presently 19 disabled children using our children’s centres.

9.9 The St Quintin Centre opened in February 2010 and provides a range of services for disabled children and their families, these include:

Access to a social worker for short-term work or information

Parent courses on a variety of subjects such as First Aid, Makaton, Triple P Parenting course and ESOL

After school, activity days/sessions during holidays, as well as a sibling club and social skills group

Saturday activity days on alternate Saturdays and a Sunday drop-in

Information on future events/consultation including signposting for higher support packages or further support

9.10 There are now over 120 children registered with the centre, with 39

accessing the core offer, 10 accessing day care and 64 accessing holiday, after school and Saturday activities.

9.11 The Disabled Children’s Team works closely with the St Quintin Centre providing social work support and packages of care for those children with the most complex needs. There are 137 children known to the team and 129 children in receipt of care packages. Last summer holiday (2010), 75 children with disabilities accessed school-based playcentres.

9.12 These children receive a range of services, and following an assessment of their needs their agreed ‘package’ of provision will include a number of different services provided by specialist and mainstream providers, including after school provision, weekend play and holiday schemes and a range of play services appropriate to their individual needs. Over the past year, 235 children received a short break, 24 received an overnight break, 21 accessed day care, 85 received a specialist holiday or weekend play service, and 24 accessed a mainstream holiday or weekend play service.

9.13 The Early Support national programme to ensure the families of disabled children receive co-ordinated, timely, empowering and supportive services has been implemented and three key workers to support families with disabled children aged under five have been recruited and are working with 101 children aged 0-6 years. They co-ordinate with the

30

Disabled Children’s Team and St Quintin to ensure there is no duplication and the children known to them are accessing the right provision.

9.14 88% of the children known to the Disabled Children’s Team are accessing

4 or more services and hence see a large number of professionals, and have numerous appointments, medical, educational and social care, which impact upon the parents. The range of services available and the co-ordination between the services is intended to ensure that families can access a supportive short break when needed, but can also access suitable day care should the parent or carer wish to access employment or training.

Childcare Needs of Parents and Carers Looking for Work

9.15 The CSA requires the borough to engage with the local Jobcentre Plus

regarding the needs of people wishing to enter the job market and the extent to which access to appropriate childcare is a barrier.

9.16 The assessment wished to determine:

how much access to childcare is still a barrier to employment;

if the barrier is location, affordability, quality or another;

information as to the type of childcare their customers are looking for;

how they access information regarding childcare

9.17 The review found childcare remains a major barrier for those seeking employment. Affordability is the main issue, with increases in children’s centre fees and the requirement of a deposit seems to have exacerbated the situation. Parents accessing low-income employment do not earn enough to pay for their childcare.

9.18 The most sought after childcare is pre-school; this usually requires

payment in advance of up to four weeks and parents are unable to afford this.

9.19 Recent changes to Child Tax credits have affected affordability.

Previously Jobcentre Plus was able to help with initial deposits for childcare but this has now changed since the spending review.

9.20 If customers ask for information regarding childcare, advisers always

refer them to the Family Information Service. Parents also report there are waiting lists for some nurseries.

31

10 MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING QUALITY STANDARDS 10.1 The Early Years service is committed to the maintenance and

improvement of the quality and standards of its childcare by providing support, training and quality assured visits across the borough. These help ensure that providers are delivering quality services.

10.2 The Early Years service has a number of funding streams to support different aspects of practice in settings. Please see below how the different streams have supported Early Years’ practitioners in RBKC:

In 2010-11, the Graduate Leader Fund (GLF) supported 36

practitioners in children’s centres and PVI setting, and childminders to obtain graduate level qualifications in early years from Foundation Degrees to BA in Early Years. It also supported the retention of 16 early years’ leaders by providing salary enhancements when they have achieved a BA or Early Years Professional Status (EYPS).

The Every Child a Talker initiative (ECAT) supported the

language development of children in 11 maintained schools and 9 PVI settings. A Speech and Language Consultant has been working as an Early Language Consultant providing one to one support visits to the ECAT settings to monitor and improve the language development of children.

A Level 4 training course was undertaken to develop the skills of

the 20 early language lead practitioners in communication and language development. Further CPD courses on communication and language were devised to support the initiative.

A total of 10 CPD sessions occurred to support the

communication and language skills of all early years practitioners in schools and settings, and a total of 232 practitioners have benefited from them.

The Quality and Inclusion Grant supported the development of a

bespoke training schedule with over 30 CPD sessions and speakers. Over 600 early years practitioners have benefited from CPD sessions in 2010-11 to access childcare training.

10.3 In 2009-10, Early Years supported 39 practitioners. Of these, there were

20 for graduate level courses, 9 for NVQ level and 11 for ILM level 5 leadership and management courses.

10.4 In 2010-11, Early Years supported 41 practitioners. Of these, there were

36 undertaking graduate level courses, 3 NVQ level, 1 Montessori Level 4 course, and 1 baby signing level 3 course.

10.5 To support quality improvement and better Ofsted outcomes Early Years

provides in-house support. In 2010-11, each setting received an initial assessment visit based on the Ofsted Self-Evaluation Framework.

32

10.6 The Initial Assessment Visit determined the level of support each setting needed:

33 settings received universal support (one-day support) during the academic year

21 settings received targeted support (4 days of support)

5 settings received intensive support (8 days of support)

In addition, another 26 independent schools were supported, 2 of these received targeted support (4 days), and the remaining 24 received universal support (1 day).

10.7 The Ofsted Inspection outcomes for settings in the borough as of 2011:11

Childminder: 3 outstanding, 24 good, 16 satisfactory and 1 inadequate

Day nursery: 2 outstanding, 7 good and 8 satisfactory

Playcentre: 5 outstanding, 8 good and 5 satisfactory

Pre-School Playgroup: 1 outstanding, 4 good and 2 satisfactory

Private Nursery School: 8 outstanding, 17 good and 6 satisfactory

11 IMPROVING FLEXIBILITY OF PROVISION AND OPENING TIMES 11.1 The CSA 2010 identified Earl’s Court Nursery Centre though flexible in its

availability and opening, was running at 60% capacity. The World’s End Under 5s offered both full-day and half-day sessions, and the continuation of Play Rangers, who supervised play at 10 sites across the borough.

11.2 The current assessment found that childcare at the Earl’s Court Nursery

Centre is available 49 weeks per year, open from 8am to 6pm daily and its provision is now running at full capacity.

11.3 World’s End Under 5s Centre offers full-day and half-day sessions for a

maximum of 24 children. 11.4 The borough’s 15 school-based playcentres provided play, childcare and

learning from 3.30 to 6pm for up to 788 children, aged five and over, every day throughout the school year.

11.5 In addition to this, Breakfast Clubs are run between 8.00am to 9.00am

in 21 of the Royal Borough’s schools.

11.6 In school holidays, school-based playcentres are open 8am to 6pm. In the academic year 2009-10, six playcentres opened over the Easter holiday to provide play, childcare and learning for 577 children. Eight opened over the summer holiday to serve 1,347 children; however, there was no provision over the Christmas holiday.

11 Ofsted accessed in June 2011

33

11.7 On average, four school-based playcentres provided play, childcare and learning to 1,263 children, during half-term holidays in 2009-10. This is an average of 421 children per half-term break.

11.8 The Play Service offers an escort service for children from across the borough to four school-based playcentres every day in school term-time. Venture Centre (Notting Hill Adventure) escort children from a number of schools to their playcentre for after–school play.

12 AFFORDABILITY 12.1 The CSA 2010 reported that Early Years had not put information on its

website yet as it had not been completed, although this was an aspiration for 2010. The FIS distributed a wide range of information on childcare and nursery education funding, tax credits and other financial assistance.

12.2 The current evaluation found that Early Years now has information on its

website. The service offers advice on funding options for parents in its newsletter, and the family outreach team continues to circulate information on costs and financial assistance for parents. FIS has continued to support parents about early years and childcare information on funding, tax credits and other financial assistance; direct enquiries have increased from parents from 19,119 to 59,041 (2009-10 to 2010-11 financial years, respectively) for online information, telephone and face-to-face.

12.3 In an attempt to determine affordability in the borough, the average

weekly cost of childminders was found to be £24212 and the average weekly cost of nurseries is £293 for children under three years-old and £267 for children over three years.13

12.4 In comparison to London and the South East, Kensington and Chelsea

has significantly higher childcare costs for both childminders and nurseries. The average cost of nursery for children under two holds the highest difference in price. Average childminder costs in the borough are slightly higher than in London as a whole. See tables 9 and 10 over page.

Table 9

Averages for Childminders

Average cost per week

% Difference to RBKC

Kensington and Chelsea £242 0.0

London £235 2.9

South East £192 20.7 12 Interdecile range of costs taken from sample of childminder costs (FIS) 13 Interdecile ranges of nursery costs using sample of public and private and public nursery costs (FIS)

34

Table 10

Averages for Nurseries

Under 2s average cost

per week% Difference

to RBKC

Over 2s average cost

per week% Difference

to RBKCKensington and Chelsea £293 0.0 £267 0.0

London £238 18.8 £226 15.4

South East £232 20.8 £228 14.6

12.5 Until June 2011, the costs for school-based playcentres :

Breakfast Clubs charges range from 50p to £2 per session

Term-time play £4 per session with a £6.50 family rate (for two or more attendees)

Holiday play £8 per session with a £13 family rate

Of the 2191 children and young people who attended school-based Playcentre provision in 2009-10, 53% were exempt from fees, 30% paid full fees and 17% received a ‘sibling’ discount (having a brother or sister also attending).

12.6 From July 2011, the cost of play during term-time and holiday is to

increase. Resources for the Play Service have greatly reduced, with the loss of grants from the Big Lottery Fund for Play, the Play Pathfinder Initiative, as well as essential savings. Resources need to be targeted as effectively as possible, whilst ensuring that children and families secure the best possible outcomes with the limited resources available.

12.7 A new rate for Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) has been introduced for the summer holiday. Both the Early Years and Play Service identified a gap during the summer holidays, parents removed their children from full-time care and placed them in playcentres. This proved to be more practical in terms of expenditure.

12.8 This new service is designed to provide convenience, in terms of

affordability and access for parents. It also prepares EYFS children for the transition into reception. Through the service, the Early Years and Play Services will ensure the staff ratio needed to care for this age range will be sufficient and secure. See table 11 over page for costs.

35

Table 11

Existing Fee Level Fee Level from July 2011

Full Fee £4 £6Subsidised Free £2 (£3 from 2012)Out of Borough resident £4 £8Family Rate £6.50 for 2 children £10.50 for 2 childrenFamily Rate £6.50 for 3 children £15 for 3 children

Full Fee £8 £12Extended Day £2 am & pm session £2 per session Subsidised Free £4 (£6 from 2012)Out of Borough resident £8 £14Family Rate £13 for 2 children £21 for 2 childrenFamily Rate £13 for 3 children £30 for 3 childrenEYFS Reception starters and Reception

Holiday

Term-Time

£16

12.9 In terms of the borough, there are 100 couples and 400 single parents in

receipt of the childcare element of Child Tax Credit (CTC), at an average value of £83.53 per week.14

12.10 This is an increase from 2008-09, where 70 couples and 390 single

parents received the childcare element of Child Tax Credit (CTC), at an average value of £81.97per week.15

12.11 The total number of Kensington and Chelsea Households with dependent

children is estimated at 15,029,16 suggesting a 3.3% take up of the childcare element of CTC.

12.12 In terms of the number of families with children in the borough in receipt

of benefits or annual entitlements, this represents an 8.2% uptake of the childcare element of CTC, and a 15.2% take up for families in receipt of Working Tax Credit and CTC.17

12.13 This suggests that although the average annual income for people living

in the borough is relatively high, standing at £46,22718, poorer families with children are benefiting from the childcare element of CTC.

12.14 As of April 2011, changes to tax credit will become effective. These

changes may reduce tax credits payments individuals and families receive, and may affect childcare costs. These changes are dependent on household income, hours worked and number of children within the family.

14 HMRC (2011) Child and Working Tax Credits Statistics Finalised annual awards 2009-10 Geographical analyses. National Statistics 15 HMRC (2011) Child and Working Tax Credits Statistics Finalised annual awards 2008-09 Geographical analyses. National Statistics 16 Nomis Census 2001. ONS 17 HMRC (2011) Child and Working Tax Credits Statistics Finalised annual awards 2009-10 Geographical analyses. National Statistics 18 Nomis Official Labour Market Statistics. ONS

36

Changes specific to Working Tax Credits (WTC) 12.15 The level of income not affected by the tax credit is to be lowered from

£25,000 to £10,000 between 2011 and 2012; it will be further reduced to £5,000 between 2013 and 2014. Therefore, increasing the rate at which tax credits are withdrawn as household income rises.

12.16 There will be a reduction in payable costs through the childcare element,

from 80 per cent to 70 per cent. This means that the maximum, which can be received through tax credits for childcare, will be £122.50 a week for one child and £210 for two or more children.

12.17 The basic 30-hour element will be frozen for three years from 2011-12.

There will be an increase working hours requirement for couples with children to 24 hours between them, with one partner working at least 16 hours a week.

Changes specific to Child Tax Credits (CTC) 12.18 From April 2011, the income limit for Child Tax Credit has been reduced

from £50,000 to £40,000 and £30,000 in 2012. This change means income over the new limit, will result in basic Child Tax Credit payment of £545 being reduced.

12.19 The baby element of CTC has been removed as of April 2011. However, the child element will be increased by £150 above inflation in April 2011 and £60 above inflation in April 2012.

12.20 From April 2012, the family element of CTC will be removed immediately

after the child element. The Government will not introduce the £4 supplement in CTC for each child aged one and two from April 2012.

Employers Supported Childcare (Childcare Vouchers) 12.21 From April 2011, the weekly amount that parents joining an Employer-

Supported Childcare scheme will be able to claim exempt of income tax and disregarded of NICs will remain at £55 for basic rate taxpayers. However, it will be reduced to £28 and £22 per week for higher and additional rate taxpayers, respectively. All current users will continue to enjoy the same exemption and disregards beyond April 2011.

37

13 SUSTAINABILITY 13.1 Sustainability was supported by funding made available through the

Borough’s General Sure Start Grant allocation, helping providers access different funding streams and the on-going business support provided by the Early Years team.

13.2 In 2010, all the services previously provided to the PVI sector remain

with the exception of the PVI Capital Grant as this funding ended in March 2011.

13.3 The current study has found in the financial year of 2010-11, the Early

Years team supported sustainability by making £100,000 available within the General Sure Start grant for which early years providers could submit a bid. A total of £78,435 was given to six eligible providers to support running costs, additional staff and salaries, subsidising fees and making up shortfalls. A further six providers submitted bids totalling £53,363 but were unsuccessful as they did not demonstrate that they faced a shortfall.

13.4 Within the Early Years allocation of the Early Intervention Grant (EIG), a

budget of £80,000 has been identified to support sustainability in 2011-12.

13.5 The ring fenced Sure Start Early Years and Childcare Grant (SSEYCG)

ended in March 2011. All services previously funded through the SSEYCG are now funded from the Early Years allocation of the Early Intervention Grant (EIG). The EIG is a new funding stream delegated to local authorities for early intervention and preventative services.

13.6 The new grant is not ring-fenced allowing greater flexibility and freedom

at local level, to respond to local needs and drive reform while supporting a focus on early intervention in the early years and up through the age range, and to pool and align funding. This enables local authorities and their partners to target the disadvantaged and achieve better results.

14 SUPPORT 14.1 The Family Information Service (FIS) supports parents and carers with

information about childcare options. This is performed over the telephone, face-to-face and information is distributed by hard copy or electronically. The content covered for formal childcare is in line with the statutory duty.

14.2 The FIS has made more information available online and redesigned how

families access relevant information. The Early Years and Play Services now have their own websites, making their information more accessible. Childcare information has been given a greater focus.

38

14.3 The FIS and Early Years also support prospective providers, with respect to pre and post-registration. This ensures they have the assistance to be successful in both childcare development and business management.

14.4 The FIS supports childcare providers in maintaining their information, ensuring it is up-to-date for public use. Providers also receive support for recruitment, through a job vacancy bulletin.

14.5 All parents requesting information via hard copy receive information about working tax credits, through locally and nationally developed materials. Other financial support and advice is also provided electronically and through hard copy.

14.6 Local employers are contacted with a letter and some relevant FIS information materials, encouraging them to engage with the FIS and disseminate service details to employees, who could then receive support

15 CONSULTATION 15.1 As part of the Childcare Sufficiency Assessment, a number of

consultations were held with stakeholders, in order, to help us identify current provision and demand across Kensington and Chelsea, and to help provide better childcare for parents and carers:

In the previous year, parents/carers were engaged with to determine the type of childcare they used and the reasons why, access to support and satisfaction with childcare providers.

We engaged with childcare providers, in order to determine if childcare in the borough is sufficient, sustainable and flexible for the needs of users.

Focus groups were held in the borough, one in the north and another in the south with parents and carers who use childcare provision.

We attempted to engage with employers to ensure the right sort of provision is in place to meet the needs of employees. Unfortunately, the response rate was too small to analyse.

39

16 PARENT SURVEY Methodology 16.1 A childcare survey was distributed to parents in order to determine what

type of childcare they were using and the reasons why, if they received any support towards the cost of childcare and the level of satisfaction with their childcare provider. See Appendix for copy of survey.

16.2 In 2010, a total 3,858 surveys were distributed to parents using children’s centres, childminders, private nurseries and out of school care19 in the Royal Borough. There were 203 completed surveys returned, giving a response rate of 5.2%.

16.3 Of the 203 parents who responded, 179 had just one child, 16 had two children, 2 had three children and 1 parent had five children. In total 19 respondents had more than one child.

Provider type 16.4 The majority (71%) of respondents had children who attended a private

nursery or playgroup. See figure 5 for breakdown by provider type. Figure 5

Childminder7%

Childrens Centre17%

Private Nursery or Play Group

71%

Out of School Care

5%

Respondents by Childcare Type

19 For the purpose of this report out of school care is school-based playcentres.

40

Financial Support 16.5 Overall, 44% of respondents received no support towards the cost of

childcare. The most frequently used method of support was childcare vouchers, with 21% of respondents using these. 18.7% (n=38) of respondents received support through Childcare Working Tax Credits and 6% (n=12) received a free place for their child.

16.6 There were differences in support received across provider types. Parents with children in private nursery and at childminders were less likely to receive any kind of support. While parents of children at children’s centres and out of school care, were more likely to receive a free place. See figure 6 below for a breakdown by support and provider type.

Figure 6

17.1

%

2.8%

22.2

%

1.4%

26.7

%

28.6

%

14.6

%

33.3

%

20.0

%

20.0

%

22.9

%

46.7

%

22.9

%

49.3

%

44.4

%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Childminder Childrens Centre Private Nursery or Play Group

Out of School Care

% o

f th

ose

Su

rvey

ed

Q3. Do you receive any support toward the costs of childcare?

Free Place Family RateChildcare Working Tax Credits Childcare Vouchers from EmployerNone

16.7 There were also differences in support received by the number of children in the family. Parents with more than one child were far more likely to use childcare vouchers from their employer and to be in receipt of Childcare Working Tax Credits. Only 15% of parents with more than one child received no support while 48% of parents with one child received no support. See figure 7 over page.

41

Figure 7

5.0

%

0.6

%

16.2

%

19.0

%

48.0

%

15.8

%

0.0

%

36.8

%

36.8

%

15.8

%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Free Place Family Rate Childcare Working Tax

Credits

Childcare Vouchers from

Employer

None

% o

f th

ose S

urv

eyed

Support received by number of children in family

1 Child More than 1 Child

Reasons for using childcare 16.8 Respondents were asked to indicate and rank by importance what it is

that childcare allows them or helps them do. The largest proportion (70%) of parents said it made them feel like their child was learning and developing. The next most popular responses were it enables them to work full-time and part-time (33% and 31.5% respectively). See figure 8 below.

Figure 8

33.0

%

31.5

%

3.9%

13.3

%

4.4%

31.0

%

23.2

%

70.0

%

10.3

%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Wor

k Fu

ll Ti

me

Wor

k Pa

rt T

ime

Vol

unte

er

Stu

dy

Car

e fo

r a

rela

tive

Cat

ch u

p w

ith

Cho

res

Hav

e so

me

leis

ure

time

Feel

You

r ch

ild

is le

arni

ng a

nd

deve

lopi

ng

Oth

er

% o

f th

ose

Su

rvey

ed

Which of the following best describes what childcare allows or helps you to do?

42

16.9 When asked to rank the choices by importance 76% of parents said that using childcare allowed them to work full-time. Only 3.2% of respondents said that catching up with chores was the most important thing that childcare allowed them to do. See figure 9 below.

Figure 9

76.0%

48.9%

0.0%4.5%

11.1%3.2% 6.1%

55.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Ranked most important - what childcare allows or helps to do

16.10 Once again, there were differences in responses according to which

childcare type the respondent was using. Higher proportions of parents who used childminders and children’s centres so they could work part-time, while higher proportions of parents who worked full-time used children’s centres and out of school care. See figure 10 over page.

16.11 In total 21 respondents indicated that they had an ‘other’ reason for

using childcare, and of these 19 said that they did so to spend more quality time with their other children, both younger and older siblings.

43

Figure 10

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

% o

f th

ose S

urv

eyed

Which of the following does describe what childcare allows or helps you to do?

Childminder Childrens Centre Private Nursery or Play Group Out of School Care

Additional needs 16.12 Parents were asked if their child had any additional needs and if so, how

happy they are that these needs are being met by the childcare provider. Overall responses were positive, with none of the parents giving a negative response. See table 12 below for details.

Table 12

No. % No. % No. %Physical Disability 2 1.0% 1 0.5% 3 1.5%Learning Disability 2 1.0% 1 0.5% 5 2.5%Dietary 16 7.9% 10 4.9% 4 2.0%English not first language 38 18.7% 12 5.9% 5 2.5%

Happy It's OKAdditional need Very Happy

44

Easy to find place?

16.13 Overall the largest proportion (43%) of respondents thought that it was ‘OK’ finding a childcare place, 38% thought it was ‘easy’ and 13% thought it was ‘hard’. See figure 11.

Figure 11

Very Easy15%

Easy23%

It was OK43%

Hard13%

Very Hard6%

How easy was it to find a childcare place?

16.14 There were no notable differences in the ease of finding a childcare place

from parents of one child compared to parents with more than one child. There were however differences when compared by provider type. See figure 12 over page.

16.15 A high proportion (78%) of respondents thought that it was easy to find

an out of school place (compared to 38% overall) and 33% of respondents thought it was hard to find a childminder (compared to 19% overall).

45

Figure 12

46.7

%

20.0

%

38.2

%

77.8

%

20.0

%

57.1

%

43.8

%

22.2

%

33.3

%

22.9

%

18.1

%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Childminder Childrens Centre Private Nursery or Play Group

Out of School Care

% o

f th

ose S

urv

eyed

How easy was it to find a childcare place?

Easy OK Hard

16.16 Overall, the greatest proportion (60.6%) of respondents had heard about

their childcare place by word of mouth. See figure 13 below and table 13 for a breakdown of responses by provider type.

Figure 13

60.6%

3.4% 1.5% 2.5% 3.4%5.9% 4.9%

17.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Word

of

Mouth

Dir

ect

Gov

Websi

te

Em

plo

yer

Child

ren's

C

entr

e

RB

KC

Fam

ily

Info

rmation

S

erv

ice

Sch

ool

RB

KC

W

ebsi

te

No R

eponse

% o

f th

ose S

urv

eyed

How did you find out about this childcare place?

46

Table 13 – How did you find out about childcare place?

No. % No. % No. % No. %Word of Mouth 7 46.7% 17 48.6% 96 66.7% 3 33.3%Direct Gov Website 2 13.3% 0 0.0% 5 3.5% 0 0.0%Employer 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 2.1% 0 0.0%Children's Centre 0 0.0% 4 11.4% 0 0.0% 1 11.1%RBKC Family Information Service 2 13.3% 2 5.7% 3 2.1% 0 0.0%School 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 4.9% 5 55.6%RBKC Website 2 13.3% 5 14.3% 3 2.1% 0 0.0%No Reponse 2 13.3% 7 20.0% 27 18.8% 0 0.0%Total 15 100.0% 35 100.0% 144 100.0% 9 100.0%

Childminder Childrens Centre Private Nursery or Out of School Care

16.17 Respondents were asked if this was their first choice of childcare. The

majority of parents (94%) indicated that it was. The figure was approximately the same for both parents with one child and more than one child, 93.9% and 94.7% respectively. There were slight differences across provider type. See table 14 below.

Table 14 – Was this your first choice of childcare?

No. % No. % No. % No. %Yes 13 86.7% 31 88.6% 139 96.5% 8 88.9%No 2 13.3% 4 11.4% 4 2.8% 1 11.1%No Reponse 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 0 0.0%Total 15 100.0% 35 100.0% 144 100.0% 9 100.0%

Childminder Childrens Centre Private Nursery or Out of School Care

16.18 Parents who did not get their first choice of childcare place were asked to

give reasons why. Reasons given were long waiting list, too expensive and days required were not available.

Satisfaction 16.19 Respondents were asked to rate how happy they were with a range of

aspects related to their childcare provider, such as travel, opening times, staff, general standards and resources and activities. Overall, parents were most happy with staff (96.1% happy) and least happy with the distance they had to travel (69.5% happy). See figure 14 over page.

16.20 There were differences in levels of satisfaction across provider type.

With parents with children at childminders being the happiest (highest mean percentage 77% of ‘very happy’ responses and parents, using Children’s centres being the least happy (lowest mean percentage 57% of ‘very happy responses). See table 15 over page

47

Tab

le 1

5:

In t

erm

s o

f th

is c

hild

care

pro

vid

er,

ho

w h

ap

py a

re y

ou

wit

h…

. C

hild

min

de

rNo.

%No.

%No.

%No.

%No.

%The d

ista

nce y

ou h

ave t

o t

ravel

960.0

%4

26.7

%2

13.3

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%O

penin

g T

imes

10

66.7

%4

26.7

%0

0.0

%1

6.7

%0

0.0

%Sta

ff14

93.3

%1

6.7

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%Genera

l Sta

ndard

s12

80.0

%3

20.0

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%Range o

f Reso

urc

es

and A

ctivitie

s13

86.7

%2

13.3

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%

Very

Happy

Happy

It's

OK

Unhappy

Very

Unhappy

Ch

ild

ren

s C

en

tre

No.

%No.

%No.

%No.

%No.

%The d

ista

nce y

ou h

ave t

o t

ravel

19

54.3

%6

17.1

%9

25.7

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%O

penin

g T

imes

21

60.0

%10

28.6

%1

2.9

%1

2.9

%0

0.0

%Sta

ff22

62.9

%10

28.6

%1

2.9

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%

Genera

l Sta

ndard

s20

57.1

%9

25.7

%4

11.4

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%Range o

f Reso

urc

es

and A

ctivitie

s19

54.3

%13

37.1

%1

2.9

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%

Very

Happy

Happy

It's

OK

Unhappy

Very

Unhappy

P

riv

ate

Nu

rse

ry o

r P

lay

Gro

up

No.

%No.

%No.

%No.

%No.

%The d

ista

nce y

ou h

ave t

o t

ravel

69

47.9

%25

17.4

%43

29.9

%4

2.8

%2

1.4

%O

penin

g T

imes

76

52.8

%40

27.8

%22

15.3

%1

0.7

%1

0.7

%Sta

ff110

76.4

%30

20.8

%1

0.7

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%Genera

l Sta

ndard

s94

65.3

%35

24.3

%12

8.3

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%Range o

f Reso

urc

es

and A

ctivitie

s80

55.6

%46

31.9

%14

9.7

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%

Very

Happy

It's

OK

Unhappy

Very

Unhappy

Happy

O

ut

of

Sch

oo

l C

are

No.

%No.

%No.

%No.

%No.

%The d

ista

nce y

ou h

ave t

o t

ravel

666.7

%3

33.3

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%O

penin

g T

imes

777.8

%2

22.2

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%Sta

ff5

55.6

%3

33.3

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%

Genera

l Sta

ndard

s6

66.7

%2

22.2

%1

11.1

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%Range o

f Reso

urc

es

and A

ctivitie

s6

66.7

%3

33.3

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%0

0.0

%

Very

Happy

Very

Unhappy

Happy

It's

OK

Unhappy

48

Fig

ure

14

49

Fees

16.2

1

Pare

nts

of

child

ren a

t priva

te n

urs

erie

s or

pla

ygro

ups

wer

e m

ore

lik

ely

to s

ay t

hat

the

fees

they

pai

d w

ere

expen

sive

(3

4%

).

Gre

ater

pro

port

ions

of

par

ents

usi

ng c

hild

min

der

s an

d o

ut

of

school

care

thought

that

the

fees

they

paid

w

ere

fair (

66.7

% r

espec

tive

ly).

See

fig

ure

15.

Fig

ure

15

50

Meeti

ng

ch

ild

’s n

eed

s

16.2

2

Ove

rall

resp

onden

ts w

ere

hap

py

that

th

eir

child

care

pro

vider

w

as m

eeting th

eir ch

ildre

n’s

so

cial

and em

otional

dev

elopm

ent.

See

fig

ure

16.

Fig

ure

16

51

16.2

3

Pare

nts

wer

e as

ked h

ow

hap

py

they

wer

e th

at t

he

serv

ices

pro

vided

by

thei

r ch

ildca

re p

rovi

der

wer

e m

eeting t

heir

child

ren’s

nee

ds

in t

erm

s of th

e fo

llow

ing d

etai

led in t

able

16 o

ver

pag

e.

16.2

4

Ove

rall

70%

of

par

ents

wer

e ve

ry h

appy

that

their c

hild

ren’s

nee

ds

around e

njo

ymen

t an

d h

avin

g f

un w

ere

bei

ng

met

. O

nly

31%

wer

e v

ery

hap

py

that

their c

hild

’s l

iter

acy

nee

ds

wer

e bei

ng m

et a

nd 3

4.5

% t

hat

their n

um

erac

y nee

ds

wer

e bei

ng m

et.

Tab

le 1

6

No.

%No

.%

No.

%No

.%

No.

%No

.%

No.

%Re

adin

g an

d W

ritin

g (L

itera

cy)

6331

.0%

5426

.6%

2411

.8%

00.

0%1

0.5%

104.

9%48

23.6

%Us

ing

Num

bers

(Nu

mer

acy)

7034

.5%

6431

.5%

2411

.8%

10.

5%0

0.0%

136.

4%25

12.3

%Ph

ysic

al D

evel

opm

ent

100

49.3

%70

34.5

%19

9.4%

21.

0%1

0.5%

73.

4%2

1.0%

Crea

tive

Deve

lopm

ent

117

57.6

%67

33.0

%11

5.4%

00.

0%0

0.0%

42.

0%1

0.5%

Know

ledg

e an

d Un

ders

tand

ing

of t

he w

orld

100

49.3

%61

30.0

%25

12.3

%0

0.0%

00.

0%8

3.9%

63.

0%Ov

eral

l Per

sona

l Dev

elop

men

t11

958

.6%

6733

.0%

83.

9%0

0.0%

10.

5%3

1.5%

10.

5%En

joym

ent

and

Fun

142

70.0

%53

26.1

%4

2.0%

00.

0%1

0.5%

00.

0%0

0.0%

Gene

ral H

ealth

and

Wel

l-bei

ng12

863

.1%

5929

.1%

125.

9%0

0.0%

10.

5%0

0.0%

10.

5%Sa

fety

120

59.1

%68

33.5

%11

5.4%

00.

0%1

0.5%

10.

5%0

0.0%

It's

OKUn

happ

yVe

ry U

nhap

pyNo

t Su

reNo

t Ap

plic

able

Very

Hap

pyHa

ppy

52

Alternative childcare arrangements 16.25 If their chosen provider was not available the greatest proportion (73.4%)

of parents said they would find another childcare provider. 9.9% said they would give up work to look after their children. See figure 17.

Figure 17

6.9%

73.4%

1.5% 1.0%

9.9%

3.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Make

arr

angem

ent

s w

ith fam

ily

Find a

noth

er

child

care

pro

vid

er

work

part

tim

e

Make

arr

angem

ent

s w

ith

frie

nds

Giv

e u

p

work

and

look a

fter

child

ren

No C

hange

% o

f th

ose S

urv

eyed

What would you do if this childcare was not available?

Parental involvement

16.26 Parents were asked if they feel that their childcare provider allows, or would allow, them to advise, influence or get involved in the way the service is run. Overall 42.9% of respondents thought their provider would ‘very much so’, 28.1% ‘sometimes’, 17.7% ‘a little’ and 3% ‘not at all’. 7% were ‘not sure’.

16.27 There were differences in responses according to childcare type. 60% of

parents using childminders responded ‘very much so’, while only 11% of those using out of school care thought this was the case. See figure 18 over the page for the breakdown of responses by provider type.

53

Figure 18

Value for money

16.28 When asked if their childcare provider represents value for money, 60% of parents responded ‘very much so’, while 33% said it was ‘ok’. Differences by provider type are detailed in table 17 below.

Table 17

No. % No. % No. % No. %Very Much 11 73.3% 19 54.3% 88 61.1% 4 44.4%It's OK or adequate 4 26.7% 10 28.6% 48 33.3% 5 55.6%Not much 0 0.0% 3 8.6% 3 2.1% 0 0.0%Not at all 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 0 0.0%Not sure 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 0 0.0%No Reponse 0 0.0% 3 8.6% 3 2.1% 0 0.0%Total 15 100.0% 35 100.0% 144 100.0% 9 100.0%

Value for money? Childminder Childrens Centre Private Nursery or Out of School Care

17 PROVIDER SURVEY

Methodology

17.1 A survey was distributed to childcare providers in order to determine if childcare provision in the borough is sufficient, sustainable and flexible for needs of users. See Appendix for copy of survey.

17.2 An online survey was distributed to providers, which included private nurseries, childminders, playgroup/pre-schools, out of school clubs20 and independent schools. There were 38 completed.

17.3 Of those who responded, 18 were private nurseries, 10 childminders, 5 playgroup/pre-schools and 5 independent schools, respectively. There were no responses from out of school clubs.

Provider type

17.4 The majority (47.4%) of providers were private nurseries, followed by childminders (26.3%). See figure 19 and table 18 for breakdown by provider type.

Figure 19

Table 18

No. % No. % No. %Private Nursery 13 56.5 4 28.6 17 45.9Childminder 4 17.4 6 42.9 10 27.0Playgroup/Pre-School 3 13.0 2 14.3 5 13.5Out of School Club 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Independent School 3 13.0 2 14.3 5 13.5Total 23 62.2 14 37.8 37 100.0

Yes No Total

20 For the purpose of this report out of school club[s] is school-based playcentres.

55

Providers by Postcode

17.5 With 71.1%, the north of the borough has highest proportion of providers (27) and of these 28.9% in W11 and 15.8% in W8. In the south, SW7 (13.2%) holds the highest proportion of providers, followed by SW10 (7.9%). See table 19 below.

Table 19

Postcode

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %W2 2 11.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 5.3%W8 4 22.2% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 6 15.8%W10 1 5.6% 2 20.0% 2 40.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 13.2%W11 7 38.9% 4 40.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 11 28.9%W14 2 11.1% 1 10.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 7.9%Total in North 16 88.9% 7 70.0% 3 60.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 27 71.1%SW1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 1 2.6%SW3 0 0.0% 1 10.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.6%SW5 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.6%SW7 2 11.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 60.0% 5 13.2%SW10 0 0.0% 2 20.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 7.9%Total in South 2 11.1% 3 30.0% 2 40.0% 0 0.0% 4 80.0% 11 28.9%Total in Borough 118 100.0% 10 100.0% 5 100.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0% 38 100%

TotalPrivate Nursery ChildminderPlaygroup/Pre-

SchoolOut of School

ClubIndependent

School

Financial

17.6 Overall, 62.2% (23) of respondents knew ‘the cost of providing a place at their setting’. Private Nurseries (13, 56.5%) had the highest number of respondents who answered yes, whilst childminders (6, 42.9%) had the highest number who did not know the cost of providing a place. See figure 20 and table 20 over page for a breakdown by childcare provider.

Figure 20

56

Table 20


Yes No Total

17.7 There were differences in the cost of providing a place across provider types

and age groups. On average, those aged 8 and above were the most costly (£729.00) and least was the age 2-3 groups (£194.90).

17.8 Independent schools had the highest costs with £1,787 and childminders

had the lowest costs (£100). See table 21 below for a breakdown of costs by provider type and age group.

Table 21 -The cost of providing a place

Private Nursery

ChildminderPlaygroup/Pre-School

Out of School Club

Independent School

Average Cost

TotalResponse

Count

£314.50 £200.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £257.25 £1,029.00 4£193.63 £200.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £194.90 £1,949.00 10£190.44 £200.00 £0.00 £0.00 £1,787.00 £325.08 £3,901.00 12

£0.00 £100.00 £0.00 £0.00 £439.50 £326.33 £979.00 3£0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £729.00 £729.00 £1,458.00 28 and above age group (£)

Under 2 age group (£)2-3 age group(£)3-5 age group(£)5-8 age group(£)

Occupancy21 17.9 Overall, both the 5-8 and 8 and above age groups (67%, respectively) had

the highest average occupancy rates at childcare settings, followed by the 3-5 age groups (51.1%).

17.10 Independent schools have the highest proportion of average occupancy

rates for age groups 3-5, 5-8, and 8 and above; all age groups have on average 100% occupancy. Playgroups/ pre-school followed with 90% for those aged under 2. See figure 21 and table 22 for a breakdown of average occupancy rate by provider type and age group.

21 Average occupancy rate for the last six months as a percentage (occupancy is defined by number of places taken up divided by total number of registered places).

57

Figure 21

Table 22 - Average occupancy rate for the last six months

Private Nursery


Out of School Club

Independent School

Average Occupancy

%13.5 18.0 90.0 0.0 0.0 28.546.4 6.8 65.0 0.0 0.0 37.752.9 22.8 75.0 0.0 100.0 51.10.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 67.00.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 67.08 and above age group

Under 2 age group2-3 age group3-5 age group5-8 age group

17.11 Part-time occupancy (66.7%) holds the majority of places with childcare providers. Of the 21 providers who responded, independent schools (100%) had the highest proportion of full-time places, followed by childminders (50%). Private nurseries (100%) and playgroups/pre-schools (66.7%) have the highest proportion of part-time places. Overall childminders had equal proportions for both. To breakeven childcare providers need an average occupancy rate of 66.7%. See figure 22 and table 23 over page for a breakdown of places occupied by provider type.

58

Figure 22

Table 23 – Type of occupancy


Full-time Part-time Total

17.12 When asked if they had a waiting list, 76.2% (16 respondents) replied yes. All independent schools and playgroups/pre-schools (100%) have a waiting list, followed by private nurseries (80%) and childminders (50%).

17.13 Children aged 3-5 (933 in total and 93 on average) are the largest group of

ages on a waiting list, whilst those aged 8 and above have smallest number (16 in total and 16 on average). See figure 23 over page.

59

Figure 23

Marketing

17.14 Childcare providers were asked if they had a marketing plan. Overall, responses show that providers (16 respondents, 69.6%) do not. Of those who responded (23 respondents), private nurseries had the greatest number (8 respondents, 50%), followed by childminders (4 respondents, 25%). Only 30.4% (7 respondents) do have a marketing plan. See table 24 below for details.

Table 24 - Do you have a marketing plan?


Yes No Total

17.15 Overall, the largest number of childcare providers (7 respondents, 30.4%) who conduct customer surveys were private nurseries (3 respondents, 42.9%). The majority of childcare providers do not conduct customer surveys (16 respondents, 69.6%). See table 25 over page.

60

Table 25 - Do you conduct customer surveys?


Yes No Total

17.16 There were notable differences in the methods childcare providers used to advertise their services. Word of mouth is the most common method used by all providers (20 responses, 87%); this is especially so for all play group/pre-schools (3 respondents, 100%) and independent schools (2 respondents, 100%). See figure 24 below and table 26 over page for a breakdown of responses by provider type.

Figure 24

61

Table 26 - How do you advertise your setting/business?

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %Family Information Service 5 45.5 6 85.7 3 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 60.9Local leaflet distribution 2 18.2 2 28.6 1 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 21.7Local Press 2 18.2 1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 13.0National Press 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 50.0 1 4.3Word of Mouth 10 90.9 5 71.4 3 100.0 0 0.0 2 100.0 20 87.0Other 5 45.5 3 42.9 1 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 39.1TT o ta l Respondents 11 447.8 7 30.4 3 13.0 0 0.0 2 8.7 23 100.0

Private Nursery


Out of School Club

Independent School

Total

17.17 Childcare providers identified ‘Other’ ways of advertising their services, the most popular being through their own website and the internet, on sites such as childcare.co.uk. They also used public places such as churches and schools.

17.18 When asked if a Parent Pack for prospective customers is produced, the majority of childcare providers (16 respondents, 69.6%), answered yes. The greatest proportion of providers, who produce packs, was private nurseries (10 respondents, 90.9% of private nurseries) and independent schools (2 respondents, 100% of independent schools).

17.19 Of the 30.4% (7 respondents) who do not produce Parent Packs, childminders (4 respondents, 57.1% of childminders) represent the majority and playgroups/pre-schools (2 respondents, 66.7% of playgroups/pre-schools) followed. See figure 25 below and table 27 over page for a breakdown of responses by provider type.

Figure 25

62

Table 27 - Do you produce a Parent Pack for prospective customers?


Yes No Total

Quality of provision 17.20 When asked how children’s personal development was reviewed,

respondents who answered (18) used a variety of techniques. The most used being ‘observations/tracking’ (11, 36.7%), followed by ‘profile/reports/files’ (9, 30.0%). See table received 28 for a breakdown of responses.

Table 28

No. %Observetaion/Tracking 11 36.7Profiles/Reports/Files 9 30.0Keyworker system 3 10.0Assessments 3 10.0Guidelines 2 6.7Other 2 6.7Total 30 100.0

Personal Development

17.21 Respondents were asked ‘how do you work in partnership with parents’. The providers who answered (18, 47.4%) used a wide range of methods to work with parents by actively engaging them in activities. The most popular means were meetings, reports and social events. Other methods included diaries, scrapbook and communicating via text or email. Responses are stated below:

“Key workers seek to build strong relationships with parents of their key children to ensure a regular two way flow of information, knowledge and expertise. These partnerships between staff and parents are developed through daily contact, parent evenings and termly parent meetings." “I work closely with all parents keeping them informed about their children at all times and in some cases I keep a daily diary” “Getting parents involved improving the nursery and charity walks/events”

63

“Daily contact, regular scheduled meetings about child's progress- Parents help contribute to learning experiences at the setting.” “Daily communication and a monthly scrapbook” “Parental involvement in projects” "We welcome parents into the nursery, providing a variety of opportunities for them to engage with the nursery and staff.” "We are parent committee run” “Parents stay for a session on rota duty” “Parental involvement in weekly projects, including a photographic record of child's out of school activities”

17.22 Only 18 respondents, 85.7% of those who responded (21) frequently reviewed the training needs of their staff. Only childminders, (3, 100%) did not. Private Nurseries (10, 35.7%) had the greatest proportion, followed by childminders (4, 14.3%). See figure 26 and table 29 below.

Figure 26

Table 29 – Do you continually review the training needs of your staff?


Yes No Total

64

17.23 Childcare providers who did review the training needs of staff stated how they did so:

“We look at regular training opportunities on offer and try to use these for particular members of staff.” “Regular training provided by the Early Years Team and the Network" “Identification of courses for individuals and to do higher qualifications” “Keep abreast of legislative changes" “Training needs identified at 1:1 supervision and at staff meetings” “Observation of staff competence” “Keeping abreast of current legislation" “Asking their needs or advising them if needed.” “We have professional development plan.”

17.24 The majority of childcare providers have not achieved quality assurance accreditation. Of the 21 who responded, 12 (57.1%) answered no, private nurseries had the majority with six (50%). Only seven providers (33.3%) have achieved accreditation and two providers (9.5%) are in progress. See figure 27 and table 30 for a break down.

Figure 27

65

Table 30 – Have you achieved a Quality Assurance accreditation?

No. % No. % No. % No. %Private Nursery 2 28.6 6 50.0 1 50.0 9 42.9Childminder 3 42.9 4 33.3 0 0.0 7 33.3Playgroup/Pre-School 2 28.6 0 0.0 1 50.0 3 14.3Out of School Club 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Independent School 0 0.0 2 16.7 0 0.0 2 9.5Total 7 33.3 12 57.1 2 9.5 21 100.0

Yes No TotalIn progress

17.25 Those who have achieved a quality assurance accreditation listed a number of schemes including the Effective Early Learning (E.E.L) programme, Pre-school Learning Alliance accreditation, National Early Years Enterprise Centre (NDNA) e-Quality Counts, Montessori Evaluation and Accreditation Board (MEAB) accreditation and Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED).

66

Inclusive Practice 17.26 Childcare providers reported they had 70 children with ‘English as an

additional language’. Of these French had the majority (10 children, 15.9%), followed by Italian (8 children, 11.4%) and Somali had the least with none. See table 31 below.

17.27 Other languages (10%) identified were Danish, German, Norwegian, Greek,

Eritrean, Albanian and Ukrainian. Table 31 – How many children in your setting have English as an Additional Language?

No. %Arabic 6 8.6Bengali 1 1.4Bulgarian 1 1.4Chinese 3 4.3Espanol 5 7.1Farsi 2 2.9French 10 14.3Finnish 1 1.4German 2 2.9Hindi 1 1.4Italian 8 11.4Japanese 3 4.3Mandarin 1 1.4Polish 1 1.4Portuguese 4 5.7Russian 6 8.6Serbian 3 4.3Swedish 2 2.9Somali 0 0.0Turkish 2 2.9Urdu 1 1.4Other 7 10.0Total 70 100.0

Additional Language

17.28 As part of their inclusive practice, childcare providers identified further

training needs for their staff. The main focus was on Learning Difficulties & Disabilities, Speech & Language i.e. Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators (SENCO) qualification and Every Child a Talker (ECAT), and Health and Safety Training. Other training needs identified were Behaviour management, advanced paediatric first aid, and observations, planning and

leadership courses.

67

Looked after children 17.29 Of the providers who answered (17 respondents), 94% (16) reported they

had ‘looked after children’ in their setting. See figure 28. Figure 28

Barriers for additional needs 17.30 The majority of childcare providers did not think that parents with children

who have additional needs had barriers to accessing their services (59%). 23% thought they would ‘possibly’ and 18% answered ‘yes’. See figure 29.

Figure 29

68

17.31 Childcare providers who answered ‘yes’ gave further details in terms of the barriers parents of children with additional needs would face accessing childcare.

“Finance… lack of trained carers” “Provision is seasonal, cost of ‘all day' place 4 days a week can be prohibitive” “Affordability and settings not having enough money for one to one workers” “Physical access possibly a problem” “Accessibility”

17.32 When asked if they had any plans to improve provision for children with

additional needs over the next 18 months. Over half had no plans to do so in the near future and for the rest it is ongoing, improving area planning and resources on an individual needs basis. One provider plans to purchase sensory equipment.

17.33 Children with speech and language needs (8 children, 42.1%) were identified

as the highest number with additional needs at childcare settings. This was followed by children on the autistic spectrum (4 children, 21.1%). One childcare provider also identified children who are physically delayed. See Table 32 below.

Table 32

No. %Autistic Spectrum 4 21.1Behaviour 2 10.5Down’s Syndrome 0 0.0Dyspraxia 0 0.0Hearing Impairment 2 10.5Medical Needs 2 10.5Multiple 0 0.0Physical Disability 0 0.0Speech & Language 8 42.1Visual Impairment 1 5.3Total 19 100.0

Additional Needs

69

Support for childcare providers 17.34 Overall, Childcare providers were happy with the service and support they

received, when asked what additional support from Early Years or Family Information Support would help them.

“We do have a very good Early Years Advisor and SEN support from the

Borough.” “Happy with current levels of support provided” “You do a very good job” “We are extremely satisfied with early years support” “They are there when I need support” 17.35 However, they identified areas where they need support, which included

training, access to information and support in putting strategies into practice.

“The support we receive is excellent. The only difficulty is that most training is offered during work hours, which makes it difficult for us to fully utilise it.”

“Trainings and networking more special educational needs coordinators

(SENCO) visits” "More up to date information on changes to legislation” “More drop in visits- for example not just for training or SEN" “Marketing”

“Support to put in to practice action plans related to health and safety, safeguarding and business plan”

70

18 FOCUS GROUP 18.1 As part of the Childcare Sufficiency Assessment, focus groups were held in

the borough, one in the north and another in the south with parents and carers who use childcare provision. The discussions highlighted how childcare is used at different stages after childbirth and why. For all it is the practicality in terms of allowing them to tend to other areas of their lives. Both groups mainly used childcare to achieve a better balance between work or study and home life.

“My son goes to grandparents once a week and I use the centre twice a week all day. I work part-time to spend more time with my child.” “I use it for baby massage and health visitor, I make full use of this.” “My daughter goes to nursery and before I took her to drop in sessions and Maxilla crèche when I had courses.”

18.2 The social aspect for both parent/carer and children is integral for using

childcare. Many commented on the difference in development between their children and those who do not use group childcare. Parents and carers highlighted the benefits, which include interacting with people sharing similar experiences as themselves.

“My son is far ahead socially compared to his friends who do not, including mentally and language.” “My son developed language skills quicker by interacting with children of all ages… from watching older kids he eats and drinks independently.” “I bring my grandchild here because his mother has bi-polar. He needs it for the interaction and so does his mother.” “I met more moms as I didn’t really know anyone, who had a child… just speaking to other mothers.”- First-time mother in her group of friends.

18.3 Factors such as price, place and people greatly influence decisions to use

formal childcare. Price is first considered, then location; convenience and facilities, and staff; their qualifications and experience. Perception of quality, security and ambience are also an important aspect.

“This centre was best for childcare in terms of price, staff and better atmosphere, they are very good.” “Nannies are 2-3 times the price of nursery.” “A lot of people in this area cannot afford childcare and we need a place like this to bring children here.”

71

“As a first time mum I felt that this centre was the safest, it is important to be happy when you leave your child … it is very difficult to go back to work if you feel that your child is unhappy.” “I went to 10-12 nurseries this was the best, it blew others away.” “I was due to go back to work and if I didn’t get a place here [for my second child] I would have taken my [first] child out of nursery and not gone back to work.”

Other formal childcare 18.4 Participants widely held a preference for children’s centres over nurseries or

childminders. This was especially so for those residing in the south. Quality of care, security and qualifications caused issues of concern in particular with childminders. One participant in the north was willing to pay for formal childcare because of the disruption a free nursery place would cause to their routine.

“Difference between childminder and nursery- it is not the same as a centre. This is like a school you can contact them... my friends notice the difference between the two.” “I don’t like the idea of leaving my child with one person. I don’t like the idea of me not being there for 8 hours a day.” “I would never use a childminder because they are taking care of other children. The quality of care would not be the same as the quality of care in [a] centre or nursery.” “I feel safer in nursery than [with a] childminder; I saw a video on the internet of a bad minder.” “It is not the same as nursery, especially the interaction for children.” “Do childminders have the same qualifications as nursery staff.” “School holidays affect decisions to put children in centres and nursery. Planning on leaving my child in centre till he goes to school...I am willing to pay for childcare because of school holidays.”

Informal childcare 18.5 Informal childcare is classed as arrangements made between friends and

family members. Attitudes towards informal childcare varied significantly between the groups. Even though some participants had similar circumstances for childcare needs, those residing in north of the borough actively used it to fill gaps where formal and professional childcare does not meet their needs. Whereas those from the south did not share the same views, it was perceived as being a burden to others. This may be due to social and cultural background, and location.

72

North “When I returned to work I had to use grandparents from April to August, when a place became available.” “Grandparents live in Chelsea and drive to pick up son once a week. I also use the grandparents or sister when I have an intensive work week. My sister lives near where I work… my sister uses nursery two days a week and grandparent twice a week, both maternal and paternal.” “Just friends, as my parents live abroad and husband’s parents live in Chelsea. I use a childminder when I have money for 2-3 hours. I leave my son with friends for a few hours only.”

South

“No family but friends and they all have children… I can’t ask friends with children to look after my own children; I need bigger space to look after a large group of children.” “Niece of partner and my mother lives in Greenford; my child doesn’t go there.” “Most people aren’t from London and no family to help with childcare.”

Access and Lack of information Childcare 18.6 When accessing childcare information in the borough, all participants felt

they ‘stumbled’ onto childcare provision. There was also a disparity between the north and south when accessing information.

18.7 Although both groups found information from other parents, the north was

more diverse in their approach including using outreach workers to receive information about childcare. In comparison to those in south, who had a more insular approach using the internet. Some participants had accessed the Family Information Services provided by the borough, but did not realise so because of the name and description used.

18.8 Many only considered childcare after the birth of their children and when

they had to return to work. This greatly impacted what choices they had for work and childcare, in terms of what, when and how much.

“You don’t know what to do especially when having a child for the first time. You aren’t told these things. If you want a certain nursery at a certain time, you need to apply a year beforehand. A lot of people find that they left it too late.” “I was offered more work but couldn’t due to the centre nearby being closed down (Latymer Christian Centre) and there was no capacity here because of extra children. The earliest chance for space will be September.”

73

18.9 Participants felt information should be provided before the birth and by

professionals who have regular access to their children. This would have prepared them when making provision for childcare.

“No health visitors could provide info on childcare. If they do it is more hush hush i.e. try and sign up early.” “Someone should tell you when you are pregnant i.e. midwife or health visitor as they visit child. They should tell you if you want to return to work [to] apply now.”

Schools 18.10 Some participants knew the processes involved in selecting schools, in terms

of obtaining information about when, where and how to apply. The majority of parents and carers plan to send their children to schools run by the borough with the preference to them being sent to schools within their catchment areas. In the south, some were considering private school as their local schools are religious and they did not feel they would be first priority. They also stated their decisions would be based on the opinions of other parents and OFSTED ratings, unlike private schools, state schools do not allow parents to visit until they have applied.

Impact of childcare 18.11 In adequate childcare greatly impacts the quality of lives of parents, carers

and children. Local provision in the borough is viewed as a ‘great community resource’. However demand outweighs provision available, this is especially so for the south of the borough and has resulted in people having to leave employment in order to care for their children. There is a frustration with not knowing where to go for help.

“No sufficient childcare in the area, so many friends have to stay at home because of no childcare.” “I don’t know where to complain to demand better.” “I don’t think I can call the council and complain about there not being enough childcare in the area.”

18.12 Women are particularly affected by what is viewed as insufficient childcare;

they give up employment to give care. This in turn affects other areas of their lives.

“I feel uncertain about what will happen next. I can extend my maternity or leave work.” “If I don’t work for 2-3 years, it will be difficult for me to get back into my profession.”

74

“Insufficient childcare does not just affect women but also men. They are part of the relationship.” “To work childcare would have been shared between self and sister.”

Areas of improvement 18.13 The main area of improvement was identified by participants in the south

was a change in admission criteria. Many of the local schools in the area are religious and even if you are religious but did not belong to the religion. Participants perceived this as discriminatory. Education should be accessible and religion should not be an obstacle.

19 RECOMMENDATION 19.1 The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea will build on current

communication channels that support parents to register for schools and nurseries, and work closely with Health Visitors to ensure that parents receive information and guidance about childcare options.

19.2 It will continue to utilise the Family Information Service (FIS) to monitor the net loss and gain of childcare places in the borough.

19.3 It will continue to monitor the demand for childcare in light of changes to Tax credits and Minimum Fee Entitlement.

19.4 It will carry out an annual satisfaction survey with an agreed percentage of childcare providers.

75

APPENDIX I : Parental Survey The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Survey of Childcare Please complete this survey and return it by Friday the 30th April 2010.

Fully completed surveys will be eligible to enter a free draw in which you could win a

£50 voucher for the supermarket of your choice. If you wish to enter the draw, please fill in your contact details at the end of this survey.

1. How many children do you have attending the childcare provider

from which you received this survey? _____________ 2. How old are they? (If you have more than one child tell us the age of each in years and months.)

Child 1 ______________________________________________

Child 2 ______________________________________________

Child 3 ______________________________________________

Child 4 ______________________________________________

3. Do you receive any of the following support toward the costs of childcare and if so, what is the value

of this support? Yes £

Free place ______ Family Rate ______ Childcare Working Tax Credits ______ Childcare vouchers from employer ______ None ______ Other (please state) ________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

______

76

4. Which of the following best describes what childcare allows or helps you to do? (If more than one description applies, please rate your answers in order of importance - 1 (most important) 2 (next) 3 and so on.)

Order of importance

Work full time ______ Work part time ______ Volunteer ______ Study ______ Care for a relative ______ Catch up with chores ______ Have some leisure time ______ Feel your child is learning and developing ______

Other (please state) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______

5. If your child or children have any additional needs, how happy are you that these are being met by

the childcare provider? Very

happy Happy It's OK Unhappy Very

unhappy Not applicable

Physical Disability Learning Difficulty Dietary English not first language

Other (please state) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. How easy was it for you to find a childcare place? Very easy Easy It was OK Hard Very Hard 7. How did you find out about this childcare place? Word of mouth Direct Gov Website Employer Children’s Centre RBKC Family

Information Service School RBKC Website

Other (please state) ________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Was this your first choice of childcare for your child or children? Yes No

77

9. If no, please tell us why you did not get your first choice of childcare place. ____________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10. In terms of this childcare provider how happy are you with: Very happy Happy It's OK Unhappy Very

unhappy

The distance you have to travel Opening times Staff General standards Range of resources and activities 11. Do you think the fees you pay for childcare are: Expensive Fair Cheap Very cheap I don’t pay fees 12. How happy are you that the services provided by this childcare provider are meeting your child’s or

children’s: Very happy Happy It's OK Unhappy Very

unhappy

Social development Emotional development Language development 13. How happy are you that the services provided by this childcare setting are meeting their needs in

terms of: Very

happy Happy It's OK Unhappy Very

unhappy Not sure Not

applicable

Reading and writing (Literacy) Using numbers (Numeracy) Physical development Creative development Knowledge and understanding of the

world

Overall personal development Enjoyment and fun General health and well-being Safety

78

14. What would you do if this childcare was not available? Make arrangements with family Find another childcare provider Work part time Make arrangements with

friends Give up work to look after

children No change

Other (please state) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

15. Do you feel that your childcare provider allows or would allow you to advise, influence or get

involved in the way the service is run?

Yes, very much Sometimes A little Not at all Not sure 16. Do you feel that the service provided by this childcare provider represents value for the money you

pay or is paid? Very much It’s OK or

adequate Not much Not at all Not sure

17. What do you think are the 3 key benefits that you and your family realise from using childcare? i) _______________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ii) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iii) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

18. What do you think are the main 3 ways in which the childcare your child or children receive could be

made better? i) _______________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

79

ii) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iii) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you would like to enter the draw, please enter your contact details below:

Name ___________________________________________________ Telephone no. ___________________________________________________ Email address ___________________________________________________ Choice of Supermarket ___________________________________________________

80

APPENDIX II : Provider Survey

81

82

83

84

85

86

APPENDIX III : Employer Survey

87

88

89

Date post:	25-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	8 times
Download:	0 times

Childcare Sufficiency Assessment...1 Childcare Sufficiency Assessment: Addressing the Action Plan...

Documents